Mt. Ivy Press, L.P. v. Defonseca, 937 N.E.2d 501

Mt. Ivy and Jane Daniel secured a jury verdict awarding Defonseca and Lee over $30 million for contract and G. L. c. 93A violations related to Defonseca's memoir.
Daniel and Mt. Ivy later sought relief from the judgment under Rule 60(b) and an independent action, alleging Defonseca's memoir was a hoax exposed by new evidence.
Defonseca and Lee moved to dismiss the Rule 60(b) independent action; the trial judge dismissed, finding Rule 60(b)(3) applicable and the independent action time-barred for Rule 60(b)(3) while separately ruling on fraud-on-the-court.
New information emerged showing Defonseca's true identity and background, prompting Daniel and Mt. Ivy to allege that Defonseca lied and misled the court at trial.
The appellate court reviews whether the independent action under Rule 60(b)(6) and the fraud-on-the-court claim against Defonseca survive a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal, and whether Lee's conduct supports relief.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Rule 60(b)(6) independent action lies for extraordinary fraud	Defonseca committed extraordinary fraud that tainted the case and the judgment.	Rule 60(b)(6) requires extraordinary circumstances; the allegations fail to meet standard against Defonseca.	Yes, claims state an independent action under Rule 60(b)(6) against Defonseca.
Fraud on the court against Defonseca	Defonseca engaged in pervasive fraud affecting the proceeding and judgment.	Fraud on the court requires egregious misconduct; the scope here supports the claim.	Yes, the plaintiffs sufficiently stated fraud on the court against Defonseca.
Fraud on the court against Lee	Lee benefited from Defonseca's misconduct and tainted the proceeding.	Lee did not know of the fraud and showed no misconduct; no basis for 60(b)(6) relief against Lee.	No, Lee is not subject to 60(b)(6) relief; affirm dismissal as to Lee.
Standard and approach for independent action review	Independent action should be reviewed de novo for 12(b)(6) dismissal.	Use standard for independent actions; treat as de novo review on dismissal.	De novo review applies to the Rule 60(b) independent action dismissal.

Sahin v. Sahin, 435 Mass. 396 (Mass. 2001) (Rule 60(b) framework; balance finality and relief from judgment)
Owens v. Mukendi, 448 Mass. 66 (Mass. 2006) (extraordinary circumstances standard in 60(b)(6))
Paternity of Cheryl, 434 Mass. 23 (Mass. 2001) (fraud timely vs. extraordinary circumstances)
Quintin Vespa Co. v. Construction Serv. Co., 343 Mass. 547 (Mass. 1962) (material breach may excuse performance in contract)
Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co., 322 U.S. 238 (U.S. 1944) (fraud to avoid unjust retention of judgment; independent action standard)
United States v. Beggerly, 524 U.S. 38 (U.S. 1998) (grave miscarriage of justice as basis for relief from judgment)
Rockdale Mgmt. Co. v. Shawmut Bank, N.A., 418 Mass. 596 (Mass. 1994) (fraud-on-the-court doctrine and standards)
Will of Crabtree, 449 Mass. 128 (Mass. 2007) (fraud on the court and officer-of-the-court considerations)
Pina v. McGill Dev. Corp., 388 Mass. 159 (Mass. 1983) (fraud concepts in court proceedings)
Pandey v. Roulston, 419 Mass. 1010 (Mass. 1995) (pro se litigants; accountability for misconduct)
Kyler v. Everson, 442 F.3d 1251 (10th Cir. 2006) (officers of the court and fraud considerations)