Seney v. Morhy, 467 Mass. 58

In April 2011 both Seney (plaintiff) and Morhy (defendant) applied for harassment prevention orders based on disputes arising from a little league baseball team; the District Court granted an order against Morhy after hearings on April 19 and 22, 2011.
Plaintiff testified to three incidents: (1) an alleged telephone threat by Morhy to “punch [him] in the face” and “break both of [his] knees”; (2) an April 15 e-mail Morhy sent to the head coach threatening to notify other parents about plaintiff’s conduct; and (3) an April 17 confrontation at practice in which plaintiff said Morhy berated and threatened him publicly.
The District Court issued a harassment prevention order requiring Morhy not to contact Seney; Morhy appealed on May 19, 2011. The order expired April 20, 2012.
The Appeals Court dismissed the appeal as moot based on O’Brien v. Borowski because the order had expired during appellate review. Morhy sought further appellate review.
The Supreme Judicial Court granted review to decide whether appeals of expired G. L. c. 258E harassment prevention orders should be dismissed as moot and whether sufficient evidence supported the order against Morhy.

Issue	Seney's Argument	Morhy's Argument	Held
Whether appeals from expired G. L. c. 258E harassment prevention orders are moot	Appeals may be dismissed when order expires	Appeal is not moot because issue is capable of repetition yet evading review and collateral consequences (stigma, records) persist	Appeals of expired harassment orders are not necessarily moot; merits review is appropriate when parties retain a continuing interest
Whether an expired harassment order should remain undisturbed absent review	Order should stand based on trial judge’s findings	Order should be vacated for lack of sufficient evidence	Case remanded to vacate the harassment prevention order against Morhy for insufficient evidence
Whether the plaintiff proved three willful, malicious acts aimed at him with intent to cause fear/intimidation/abuse	Plaintiff claims three incidents satisfy statutory elements	Defendant argues incidents were not willful, malicious, or aimed at plaintiff and lacked requisite intent/effect	The record did not show three qualifying acts; e-mail was not directed at plaintiff and altercation evidence was insufficient
Whether collateral-record consequences justify appellate review	N/A (plaintiff did not dispute collateral concerns)	Morhy asserted risk of stigma and record harm; statutory destruction applies only if order vacated	Court acknowledged collateral consequences and statutory record-destruction remedy if vacated; these support reaching the merits rather than dismissal as moot

O’Brien v. Borowski, 461 Mass. 415 (Sup. Jud. Ct. 2012) (analyzed constitutionality and evidentiary standard for civil harassment under G. L. c. 258E and reviewed an expired order on the merits)
Blake v. Massachusetts Parole Bd., 369 Mass. 701 (1976) (defining when litigation is moot—loss of personal stake)
Wolf v. Commissioner of Pub. Welfare, 367 Mass. 293 (1975) (capable-of-repetition-yet-evading-review exception to mootness)
Aime v. Commonwealth, 414 Mass. 667 (1993) (courts may reach merits in matters that no longer involve a live controversy to serve public interest)
Wooldridge v. Hickey, 45 Mass. App. Ct. 637 (1998) (party challenging abusive/harassment order retains interest in clearing record/stigma)
Lawrence v. Gauthier, 82 Mass. App. Ct. 904 (2012) (wrongfully issued harassment orders create collateral-consequence concerns similar to G. L. c. 209A orders)
Frizado v. Frizado, 420 Mass. 592 (1995) (recognizing potential adverse effects of protective orders on future proceedings)