Intrinsic fraud is, according to Black’s Law Dictionary, “that which pertains to issues involved in the original action or where acts constituting fraud were, or could have been, litigated therein.”

So is James Hresko’s claim of fraud by his ex-wife in concealing assets intrinsic fraud pertaining to issues that could have been litigated in his divorce?  Or is it extrinsic fraud which actually prevented an adversarial trial?  If the fraud is intrinsic, James cannot reopen his divorce.  If extrinsic, he can.

Well, it depends on where you live.  In California, Missouri or Montana, concealment of assets is extrinsic fraud that reopens the case.  In New York, Texas and North Carolina, it is intrinsic fraud and the case cannot be reopened.

The Court of Special Appeals decided that Maryland would follow the latter decisions and hold that misrepresentations of assets are intrinsic to the divorce.  It said that James was not prevented from trying his case.  Therefore, he could not reopen his divorce.

He had “every opportunity to examine these representations through discovery methods or in court.  Instead, he chose to file an uncontested answer and permitted the matter to go to judgment,” the court said.  “Public policy in this state demands an end to litigation.”

Hresko v. Hresko, 83 Md. App. 228; 574 A.2d 24 (1990)

Interrogatories are written questions that must be answered under oath.  The number of interrogatories you can ask are limited in the three local jurisdictions.

• Maryland.  Thirty interrogatories.
• Virginia.  Thirty interrogatories.
• District of Columbia.  Forty interrogatories.

Responses are due in writing within a certain time period in compliance with the Court Rules.

• Maryland.  Thirty days from service plus three for mailing.
• Virginia.  Twenty days from service plus three for mailing.
• District of Columbia.  Thirty days from service plus three for mailing.