Skip to main content

Harassment Prevention Orders - 2 SJC Decisions

On January 28, 2014, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court released two decisions that significantly affect the ability to obtain a Harassment Prevention Order in Massachusetts.

Harassment Prevention Orders in Massachusetts are governed by M.G.L. c. 258E, which defines Harassment as follows:
“Harassment”, (i) 3 or more acts of willful and malicious conduct aimed at a specific person committed with the intent to cause fear, intimidation, abuse or damage to property and that does in fact cause fear, intimidation, abuse or damage to property...
In Smith v. Mastalerz (SJC-11011039. January 28, 2014 - available here), the SJC clarifies what constitutes 3 or more acts.  The trial Judge found that the Defendant driving by the Plaintiff three times all within a short period of time counted as 3 separate acts.  However the SJC disagreed "with the judge that driving by the plaintiff constituted three separate acts of harassment."  In addition, the lower court had not made specific findings that convinced the SJC that the act of driving by was "wilful and malicious, directed at the plaintiff, intended to cause, and in fact did cause, fear, intimidation, abuse, or damage to property."

In Smith, the SCJ is sending a clear message that they are looking for lower court findings in Harassment Prevention Order cases to include three distinct incidents temporally, as well as clear findings that the alleged incidents were malicious and willful.  This requires more than an inference and will likely require more work by Plaintiffs to obtain these orders.

In another decision published on the same date, the SJC further addressed the issue of malicious intent.  In Seney v. Morhy (SJC-11399. January 28, 2014 - available here), the SJC overturns a lower court's harassment prevention order even though it had already expired.  First, the SJC points out the importance of deciding appeals of these cases, even if moot for the future of that case, because the issue could continue to arise but avoid review due to the temporary nature of these cases.  In addition, if the order never should have issued that will affect the record keeping on that matter.

After addressing that procedural issue, the SJC turned to the actual incidents in this case which involved alleged harassment by a parent of an assistant little league coach.  In particular, one of the alleged incidents was an e-mail sent to the head coach that berated the assistant coach.  The SJC decided that the e-mail did not meet the standard for Harassment because "it was not directed at him and was not motivated by cruelty, hostility, or revenge."

Read in conjunction with the Smith case, the SJC is telling the trial court that harassment requires malicious intent and harm.  That is more than just a mean e-mail, and this heightened standard must be applied to each alleged incident specifically.   Two incidents of clear harassment and one mean e-mail still won't be enough to meet the statutory definition of harassment under these two decisions.

Practice Tip:  As the Plaintiff in a Harassment Prevention Order case it might be tempting to simply present three incidents that make the case, even if there are more.  However, if any one of them doesn't meet the standard you are only left with two incidents.  To avoid a dismissal, if there are more than 3 incidents you should present every incident that constitutes harassment.  Then, even if the record isn't sufficient on one incident that won't result in a dismissal so long as there at least 3 sufficient incidents.


Popular posts from this blog

What is the purpose of the Divorce Nisi waiting period?

In Massachusetts the statutory waiting period after a Judgment of Divorce and before the divorce becomes final (or absolute) is called the Nisi period. After a divorce case settles or goes to trial, a Judgment of Divorce Nisi will issue and it will become Absolute after a further ninety (90) days. This waiting period serves the purpose of allowing parties to change their mind before the divorce becomes final. If the Judgment of Divorce Nisi has issued but not become final yet, and you and your spouse decide you don't want to get divorced, then you can file a Motion to Dismiss and the Judgment will be undone. Although many of my clients who are getting divorced think the idea of getting back together with their ex sounds crazy, I have had cases where this happened. In addition to offering a grace period to change your mind, the Nisi period has three other legal effects: 1. The most obvious effect of the waiting period is that you cannot remarry during the Nisi period, be

New Massachusetts Child Support Guidelines (2021): Big Changes, Little Changes, Typos & some Unexpected Results

UPDATE: The court has released a web calculating version of the 2021 MA Child Support Guidelines Worksheet .  It resolves some of the typos referred to below, but the unexpected calculations still apply. Every four years, per federal mandate, the Massachusetts Probate & Family Court revisits the Child Support Guidelines through the work of a Task Force appointed by the Chief Justice.  The 2021 Massachusetts Child Support Guidelines were recently posted.  They take effect on October 4, 2021.    If you are interested in a training on all of these changes to the new Child Support Guidelines: DMTA Presents the 2021 MA Child Support Guidelines Update  – Attend this event to learn the key updates you need to know for your mediation clients. Presented by Justin Kelsey of  Divorce Mediation Training Associates  and  Skylark Law & Mediation, PC . For a full comparison of all the  tracked changes between the 2018 and 2021 Massachusetts Child Support Guidelines you can download a pdf sho

Does a Criminal Record affect Child Custody?

If one of the parents in a custody case has a criminal record, the types of crimes on their record could have an effect on their chances of obtaining custody. In custody cases the issue is always going to come down to whether or not the best interests of the child might be affected. In the most extreme case, in which one parent has been convicted of first degree murder of the other parent, the law specifically prohibits visitation with the children until they are of a suitable age to assent. Similarly, but to a less serious degree, in making custody and visitation determinations the court will consider crimes that would cause one to question the fitness of a parent. These types of crimes would obviously include any violent crime convictions which could call into question whether the children would be in danger around a parent who has shown themselves to resort to violence when faced with conflict. In addition, drug and alcohol abuse offenses would call into question a parent&#