BARRINGTON v. DYER (2019)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28

We affirm the judgment of the Superior Court dismissing the plaintiff's complaint for fraud. As the judge correctly recognized, the plaintiff's complaint constitutes an impermissible collateral attack on the judgment of the Probate and Family Court, entered upon the stipulation of dismissal, with prejudice, of the defendant's decedent's complaint for partition of certain real property. See Harker v. Holyoke, 390 Mass. 555, 558 (1983); Fishman v. Alberts, 321 Mass. 280, 282 (1947). The plaintiff's contention that the stipulation of dismissal is invalid (because it was procured by fraud) does not require a different result; any such contention must be established by means of a motion in the Probate and Family Court for relief from the judgment entered on the stipulation, and not by a separate action in the Superior Court. See Mass. R. Civ. P. 60 (b) (3), 365 Mass. 828 (1974). Nor does the plaintiff's invocation of the recently enacted Uniform Trust Code affect the analysis; G. L. c. 203E, § 111, largely codified prior law, and in any event it does not authorize a collateral attack on a judgment of the Probate and Family Court based on a claim that the agreement on which it was based is invalid.⁴

Judgment affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

4.   We need not consider the other two grounds cited by the motion judge as bases to dismiss the complaint.