J.P. v. T.O.

NOTICE: Summary decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to M.A.C. Rule
23.0, as appearing in 97 Mass. App. Ct. 1017 (2020) (formerly known as rule 1:28,
as amended by 73 Mass. App. Ct. 1001 [2009]), are primarily directed to the parties
and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel's
decisional rationale. Moreover, such decisions are not circulated to the entire
court and, therefore, represent only the views of the panel that decided the case.
A summary decision pursuant to rule 23.0 or rule 1:28 issued after February 25,
2008, may be cited for its persuasive value but, because of the limitations noted
above, not as binding precedent. See Chace v. Curran, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 258, 260
n.4 (2008).

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

APPEALS COURT

23-P-638

J.P.

vs.

T.O.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0

This is an appeal from an extension of a harassment

prevention order issued pursuant to G. L. c. 258E.1 The original

harassment prevention order was entered on May 6, 2022, after a

hearing at which both parties testified. The extension order,

which is the subject of this appeal, was entered on December 30,

2022, again after a hearing at which both parties testified.2

1The extension order itself is titled "Findings and Ruling
on Request for Extension of 209A Order." However, it is clear
from other documents in the record, including the original
harassment prevention order and the transcript of the extension
hearing, that the judge understood and intended the extension
order to be issued under c. 258E.

2While the extension order indicates that the order would
terminate on December 29, 2023, this case is not moot. See
Seney v. Morhy, 467 Mass. 58, 62 (2014) ("appeals from expired
harassment prevention orders, like appeals from expired abuse
Subsequent to the entry of the December 30, 2022 extension

order, a panel of this court on appeal vacated the initial May

6, 2022 order. The panel's Rule 23.0 memorandum and order

concluded: "[b]ecause we agree there was insufficient evidence

of three or more willful acts by the defendant aimed at the

plaintiff, each with the intent to cause fear, intimidation,

abuse, or damage to property, we vacate the order." J.P. v.

T.O., 102 Mass. App. Ct. 1124 (2023).

The prior decision vacating the May 6, 2022 order

foreordains the result in this case, which is that the December

30, 2022 order must also be vacated. The relevant facts are not

materially in dispute, and are set forth in the prior decision.

In brief, the plaintiff and the defendant grew up in the same

neighborhood, and had known each other for many years prior to

May of 2022. The defendant had contacted the plaintiff many

times by text message and social media platforms prior to May of

2022, although contact had been infrequent since sometime in

2020. The prior decision explains in detail why the defendant's

contacts with the plaintiff (and other actions) did not qualify

as three separate acts of harassment as defined in O'Brien v.

Borowski, 461 Mass. 415, 426 (2012). Importantly for our

prevention orders, should not be dismissed as moot where the
parties have a continuing interest in the case").

2
purposes, it is not disputed that the defendant did not have any

further contact with the plaintiff between the May 6, 2022

hearing and the December 30, 2022 hearing. Nor did the

plaintiff testify to any additional pre-May 6, 2022 contacts

when she testified at the December 30, 2022 hearing. Inasmuch

as the pre-May 6, 2022 contacts were legally insufficient to

justify a c. 258E order and there was no further contact

thereafter, it follows that there was no sufficient basis for

the December 30, 2022 extension order, and it must be vacated.

So ordered.

By the Court (Meade,
Englander & Hodgens, JJ.3),

Assistant Clerk

Entered: May 28, 2024.

3 The panelists are listed in order of seniority.

3