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)

James Hresko thought he could prove fraud in his divorce by his ex-wife Marie Heskro.  She told him she had no assets.  They settled their divorce with an agreement that gave her the option of buying him out of the house.  After an uncontested divorce, she exercised her option.  James thought she would have to get a mortgage to buy him out and he was stunned when she paid him $30,000 in cash.

James filed a motion to revise the judgment of divorce claiming that Marie had fraudulently concealed assets.

Thirty days after a divorce is entered in the court records by the clerk, it becomes final and unappealable.  In order to set it aside then, you must show that it was the product of fraud, mistake or irregularity.

But fraud comes in two varieties.  In Maryland, the type of fraud required to reopen a case must be extrinsic fraud and not fraud which is intrinsic to the trial itself.  Think you know how this case turns out?  Stay tuned for more discussion of extrinsic and intrinsic fraud.