About the Firm
Areas
Disclaimer

The information contained in this web site is not legal advice; it is for educational purposes only. Use of Nissenbaum Hickey website(s) does not create an attorney/client relationship between you and Nissenbaum Hickey LLC, even if you provide this web site, whether by e-mail or through one of its software programs, with your personal or confidential information. If you are in the process of (or contemplating) a divorce or involved in any legal matter, you should hire a lawyer.

Copyright Notice
Copyright 2015 Nissenbaum Hickey LLC. All rights reserved. Reuse or copying of any material contained within this web site is by permission only, unless otherwise specified. Direct your questions about permissions to NissenbaumHickey.

Nissenbaum Law Offices 617.542.2220
Search the Site  
Home > Summary Index > 209A
 

  NISSENBAUM’S STANDARD SET OF

  CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

209A Soup to Nuts

 

DISCLAIMER

 WARNING!  THIS IS A DISCLAIMER!  NOTHING ON THE WEB SITE IS TO BE CONSIDERED IN THE NATURE OF LEGAL ADVISE, NOR IS THE INFORMATION PROVIDED NECESSARILY UPDATED TO INCLUDE THE LATEST MASSACHUSETTS CASES OR CASES FROM OTHER JURISDICTIONS WHICH MAY EFFECT THEIR CASE.   YOU MUST CONTACT THE LAWYERS AT NISSENBAUM HICKEY OR ANOTHER EXPERT IN FAMILY LAW IN ORDER TO SEEK INDIVIDUAL LEGAL ADVICE ABOUT YOUR CASE. 

12.0 Destruction of Records if Order is Vacated

C. 209A, Section 7 provides that whenever an abuse prevention order is vacated, the court shall direct the appropriate law enforcement agency to destroy all record of the vacated order. See Smith v. Joyce, 421 Mass. 520, 521 (1995). Wooldridge v. Hickey, 45 Mass. App. Ct. 637 (1998).

The order does not need to be vacated nunc pro tunc, see Santos v. Chrysler Corp., 430 Mass. 198, 216 (1999), because the registry created by G. L. c. 209A, 7 includes specific measures to ensure that the record of a vacated restraining or protective order will be eliminated, thereby obviating the possibility of public disclosure or possible service of a vacated order. Vaccaro v. Vaccaro, 425 Mass. 153, 157-159, 161-162 (1997). Uttaro v. Uttaro, 54 Mass. App. Ct. 871 (2002).

The 7 mechanisms are sufficient safeguards, without the court’s intrusion into the legislative thicket entering a nunc pro tunc order. Uttaro v. Uttaro, 54 Mass. App. Ct. 871 (2002).

 

Copyright 2015 Nissebaum Hickey LLC. All rights reserved.