Guideline 1:09
General Laws c. 209A, § 2, provides a choice of venue to the plaintiff, who may commence the action in the court with venue over the plaintiff’s current residence or, if the plaintiff has left a previous residence or household to avoid abuse, the court having venue over the previous residence or household. Venue, which is distinct from jurisdiction, may be waived if an objection is not made in a timely manner.
Occasionally, a plaintiff may seek an abuse prevention order in a court that does not have venue over the plaintiff’s prior or current residence. Because the purpose of the venue provision is to facilitate a plaintiff’s application for an order and to encourage the prompt and timely resolution of the application, a plaintiff seeking an ex parte order should never be turned away for lack of venue. Similarly, where the statute provides for the confidentiality of a plaintiff’s address as part of the protective aspects of the statute, the court should ordinarily not address venue absent an objection by the defendant. See Guideline 5:01A Venue: Objection.
Commentary
“A defect in venue does not irrevocably strip a court of all authority to hear a case.” M.B. v. J.B., 86 Mass. App. Ct. 108, 115 (2014). If an objection to venue is not raised, it is waived. Id. Cf. Commonwealth v. Robinson, 48 Mass. App. Ct. 329, 336 (1999). Because venue is not an issue of jurisdiction, M.B., 86 Mass. App. Ct. at 115, venue considerations do not affect a court’s authority to issue an ex parte order.
If an objection to venue is made and venue is in another court of the Commonwealth, the remedy is not dismissal, but rather transfer to a court with venue. Cormier v. Pezrow New England, Inc., 437 Mass. 302, 307 (2002). See G.L. c. 218, § 2A (transfer of civil actions brought in wrong court); G.L. c. 223, § 15 (erroneous venue; procedure). Cf. Markelson v. Dir. of Div. of Employment Sec., 383 Mass. 516, 518–19 (1981) (“Venue being a procedural matter which in no way affects the inherent authority of the District Court to entertain unemployment compensation claims, dismissal on that single basis is not required as a matter of law.”).
Absent an objection by the defendant, the judge ordinarily should not address venue. There are a variety of reasons why a plaintiff may have sought relief in a court other than the one with venue over their current or prior residence. For example, a plaintiff may choose to file a c. 209A complaint in the court where a criminal case is currently pending against the defendant, or the person is in fear of the defendant learning of a new residence and the court with venue over the prior residence is neither convenient for the plaintiff or the defendant. As venue is based on the plaintiff’s residence and not the defendant’s, the court should not presume that a defendant would be unfairly burdened, and therefore object to, appearing in a court different from the one with venue over the plaintiff’s current or former residence. However, if it is obvious that the court is without venue and the judge determines that the plaintiff may be intentionally choosing a court without venue in an effort to prevent the defendant from appearing at the hearing after notice or present a defense, the court can consider returning the order to a court with venue following the procedure set forth in Guideline 5:01A Venue: Objection. The Issuing Court must also immediately provide copies of the complaint and order to the appropriate police department for service on the defendant.
Note: This transfer procedure in Guideline 5:01A Venue: Objection, is only available to cure a defect in venue. Transfer of a case for any other reason, such as the existence of a mutual order in another court, still requires transfer through the administrative office of the appropriate court department (the department Chief Justice if transferring to a division within the same court department, or, if the courts are in different departments, the Chief Justice of the Trial Court).
Contact
Phone
Address
| Last updated: | October 20, 2025 |
|---|