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 asked the court to reopen his uncontested divorce for fraud because he said his ex-wife misrepresented her assets in negotiating a settlement agreement.  But the Maryland courts will only reopen a case if the fraud is extrinsic, not intrinsic.

What is extrinsic fraud?  Black’s Law Dictionary says it is the type of fraud which is collateral to the issues tried in the case.  The court says it is fraud which actually prevents a trial. Examples of extrinsic fraud would be:

• An opponent keeps a party away from court.
• A false promise of compromise.
• A party did not have knowledge of the suit.
• An attorney pretends to represent someone they do not.
• An attorney corruptly sells out his client.

James said his ex prevented him from trying the case by keeping him away from the court with a false promise of compromise.  To be continued.