| About the Firm |
| Areas |
| Disclaimer |
|
The information contained in this web site is not legal advice; it is for educational purposes only. Use of nissenbaumlaw.com does not create an attorney/client relationship between you and Nissenbaum Law Offices, 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 2011 Gerald L. Nissenbaum Law Offices. 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 Gerald L. Nissenbaum. |
NISSENBAUM’S STANDARD SET OF
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
209A Soup to Nuts
DISCLAIMER
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).