Robert George Gordon, Jr. v. Karen Lee Gordon

Springfield, Massachusetts family law lawyers represented the parties in a marriage dissolution (Divorce) action.



Robert Gordon (husband) appeals from an April 22, 2024, order, postjudgment, which order denied his pleading designated "Motion for Leave to File Re-opening of Judgment Dated January 6, 2023 Due to Fraud and Hiding of Assets." The order denying leave to file was based upon a prior order of the Probate and Family Court judge, dated March 20, 2024, and entitled "Order Limiting Filing," which required the husband to obtain leave to file any further postjudgment motions. The March 20, 2024, order limiting filing identified fourteen separate postjudgment motions that the husband had previously filed, and stated that leave to file further motions would be "decided administratively by a judge of this Court based upon [husband's] compliance with the Rules of Court, and whether the requested submission raises new issues or legal arguments that have not been previously determined by this Court."



* * *



Legal issue Was the denial of leave to file further postjudgment motions in a divorce case justified?

Headnote





FAMILY LAW. POSTJUDGMENT MOTION TO REOPEN DIVORCE JUDGMENT. The case involves an appeal from an order denying a husband's motion to reopen a divorce judgment due to alleged fraud and asset concealment, where the court upheld an earlier decision imposing restrictions on postjudgment filings because of the husband's repeated and unmeritorious motions.



Key Phrases Motion for Leave to File. Postjudgment motions. Order Limiting Filing. Judgment of divorce. Appellate attorney's fees.

Affirmed