M.C.D. v. D.E.D.
90 Mass. App. Ct. 337
| Mass. App. Ct. | 2016Background
- On December 15, 2014, an ex parte G. L. c. 209A abuse prevention order was issued based on the plaintiff’s affidavit alleging the defendant beat her on December 3, 2014.
- At the ex parte hearing plaintiff was minimally communicative; her attorney described serious injuries and medical corroboration and provided photographs to the judge.
- At the noticed hearing (Dec. 22, 2014) the plaintiff did not appear; defense counsel offered alibi evidence (employment, video, witnesses) and argued the allegation never occurred; the judge terminated the order.
- On March 6, 2015 the defendant moved to vacate the 209A and expunge all records; the judge endorsed the motion as “Allowed” on March 30, 2015 and later issued findings (docketed May 5, 2015) finding the plaintiff made false statements under oath and that those statements constituted a fraud on the court.
- The Commissioner of Probation appealed the expungement order as erroneous; the defendant cross-appealed only the timeliness issue but did not press it on appeal.
- The Appeals Court reviewed whether the judge’s subsidiary findings supported a finding of fraud on the court sufficient to justify expungement of registry records.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the judge’s findings supported expungement based on fraud on the court | Plaintiff (through judge’s findings) allegedly procured the 209A by knowingly false sworn statements to obtain protection | Defendant argued plaintiff knowingly lied to procure the order; expungement appropriate because the allegation was false and harmed him | No — the court held the judge’s findings did not establish the kind of sentient, systemic "fraud on the court" needed to expunge 209A records |
| Timeliness of the commissioner’s appeal | N/A (commissioner appealed) | Defendant argued appeal untimely because judge’s March 30 endorsement allowed the motion then | Appeals Court exercised discretion and found the appeal timely because the March 30 endorsement did not clearly constitute an expungement order; the May 5 docketed findings triggered the appeal period |
| Standard for expungement from registry | Expungement justified when order was obtained by fraud on the court | Commissioner argued expungement is narrow and requires clear-and-convincing proof of an unconscionable scheme affecting the judicial process | Held expungement is a narrow exception; mere false allegation alone, without more systemic or egregious conduct, does not meet the standard |
| Proper scope of fraud-on-court doctrine in 209A context | N/A | N/A (court articulated standard) | Court emphasized fraud on the court requires deliberate scheme or pattern (beyond isolated false testimony) that interferes with adjudication; single false allegation insufficient here |
Key Cases Cited
- Commissioner of Probation v. Adams, 65 Mass. App. Ct. 725 (2006) (recognizes narrow fraud-on-court exception permitting expungement when a larger scheme or pattern is proven)
- Silva v. Carmel, 468 Mass. 18 (2014) (records of abuse prevention orders are not to be expunged absent fraud on the court)
- Vaccaro v. Vaccaro, 425 Mass. 153 (1997) (statutory recording of 209A orders serves public safety; expungement power is not readily implied)
- Rockdale Mgmt. Co. v. Shawmut Bank, N.A., 418 Mass. 596 (1994) (definition of fraud on the court as conduct that unconscionably interferes with the judicial process)
- MacDonald v. MacDonald, 407 Mass. 196 (1990) (examples of fraud on the court include bribery and involvement of officers of the court in fraud)
- Wojcicki v. Caragher, 447 Mass. 200 (2006) (false testimony alone does not necessarily constitute fraud on the court without more egregious conduct)
- Department of Revenue v. Mason M., 439 Mass. 665 (2003) (docketing and clear orders trigger appeal periods)
- Zielinski v. Connecticut Valley Sanitary Waste Disposal, Inc., 70 Mass. App. Ct. 326 (2007) (clarifies requirements for docket entries and notice to trigger appeal periods)