Included here for the first time are proposed amendments to Rules 7-85 of the Massachusetts Rules of Domestic Relations Procedure. Also included are further proposed amendments to Rules 1-6 of the Massachusetts Rules of Domestic Relations Procedure that were made in response to public comments received previously.
The proposed amendments:
- include language which is gender neutral and, in many places, modernized to replace unnecessarily technical or archaic terms;
- eliminate references that are inapplicable to practice in the Probate and Family Court;
- include new formatting in many places that replace dense block text with easier to read lists and outlines; and
- make substantive changes to many rules, several of which mirror recent changes to the Massachusetts Rules of Civil Procedure or, when appropriate, depart from those rules.
Among the more significant of the proposed substantive changes are:
Rule 1: removing G. L. c. 209A abuse prevention matters from those cases governed by the Rules of Domestic Relations Procedure. This change would leave abuse prevention proceedings governed by the Supplemental Rules of the Probate and Family Court and, through many of those rules, the Rules of Civil Procedure.
Rule 3: permitting electronic filing, per the Massachusetts Rules of Electronic Filing.
Rule 4(c): retaining and expressly defining the “disinterested person” provision to include constables and process servers employed in firms that employ constables. Parties continue to be able to request that the judge appoint another specific person to make service.
Rule 4(d): permitting new forms of alternative service when personal service is not made (e.g., e-mailing, text messaging, and communicating through a social media platform). In response to public comment, the rule removes newspaper publication as a default alternative service, including it only as a method when expressly ordered by the judge.
Rule 5: permitting electronic filing and use of email to parallel the Rules of Civil Procedure and the Massachusetts Rules of Electronic Filing.
Rule 5(b): replacing a person “of suitable age and discretion” with a person “who is 18 years of age or older” and “is not a child of any party in the case,” as a recipient of service at a party’s dwelling, to avoid involving children in the litigation.
Rule 5(h): adding language to protect personal identifying information that parallels a recent amendment to the Rules of Civil Procedure.
Rule 6: enlarging the deadline for filing oppositions to motions from one to two business days before the hearing and applying the extra three days allowed for a reply, whether the service is made by mail or electronic means.
Rule 11: adopting changes regarding the use of electronic signatures by attorneys and self-represented litigants.
Rule 14: adopting the primary substance of Rule 14 of the Rules of Civil Procedure governing third-party practice. Currently this rule is not incorporated in the Rules of Domestic Relations Procedure, but it may be relevant in cases involving multiple plaintiffs and defendants (e.g., grandparent visitation claims involving two grandparents, certain parentage actions).
Rule 17(a): removing references to “insurers” and G. L. c. 152 (workers compensation law), which are not relevant to domestic relations proceedings.
Rule 17(b): removing references to “infants” and “incompetent” persons, in favor of “minors” and “protected” persons, respectively.
Rule 20: adopting the Permissive Joinder of Parties rule, with substantive language identical to Rule 20 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. Currently this rule is not incorporated in the Rules of Domestic Relations Procedure, but it may be relevant in cases involving multiple plaintiffs (e.g., grandparent visitation claims involving two grandparents, certain parentage actions).
Rule 21: adopting the Misjoinder and Non-Joinder of Parties rule, with substantive language identical to Rule 21 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. As with Rule 20, adding this previously unincorporated rule may be relevant in cases involving multiple parties.
Rule 25(a): adopting section (a), Death, into Rule 25, Substitution of Parties, with substantive language identical to Rule 25(a) of the Rules of Civil Procedure. This provision may be relevant in cases where a personal representative is a proper party to an action.
Rule 25(b): removing references to “incompetency”, in favor of “incapacity”.
Rule 26: adopting changes to match 2014, 2016, and 2017 amendments to the Rules of Civil Procedure, specifically related to electronic records and the mistaken production of records.
Rules 30 and 30A: adopting changes to match recent amendments to the Rules of Civil Procedure, including the merger of Rules 30 and 30A. Other changes include adding provisions for taking depositions in person or remotely at the noticer’s election. The proposed rule retains the requirement for leave of court to take the deposition of a minor or an incarcerated person, and the application of the marital disqualification in depositions.
Rule 34: adopting changes to match 2014 and 2016 amendments to the Rules of Civil Procedure, largely related to production of electronically stored information.
Rule 35: broadening the scope of court-ordered examinations by replacing a suitably licensed “physician” with a suitably licensed “examiner”. This change tracks recent changes to the Rules of Civil Procedure.
Rule 41(a): including language that limits the effect of a voluntary dismissal of a divorce action so that such a dismissal operates as an adjudication on the merits of only “so much of a judgment of divorce nisi as would terminate the marriage” when the plaintiff has previously dismissed an action based on or including the same claim. Currently, a notice of voluntary dismissal operates as an adjudication on the merits when the plaintiff has previously dismissed an action based on the same claim, meaning that a plaintiff cannot relitigate the same claims in a subsequent action. The proposed change limits the preclusive effect of a previous voluntary dismissal to the divorce itself. The plaintiff may litigate the other claims made in the voluntarily dismissed action (e.g., support, alimony, etc.). Moreover, any preclusive effect on refiling for divorce does not limit a plaintiff’s ability to file a subsequent action based on different claims (e.g., a breakdown of the marriage that occurs after the prior action’s dismissal).
Rule 45: adopting changes to match 2014 and 2015 amendments to the Rules of Civil Procedure, specifically expanding the subpoena provisions to expressly provide for production of documents, electronically stored information, and tangible things. The proposed rule also addresses privilege claims regarding responses to subpoenas.
Rule 45(c): prohibiting service of a subpoena by a child of a party in the case regardless of age.
Rule 45(d): deviating from the Rules of Civil Procedure by allowing 14 days to object to a subpoena rather than 10 days.
Rule 51: changing the time provided for argument from 30 minutes to “a reasonable time for argument as the court may determine.”
Rule 52: adding language to address the procedure for providing the court with a transcript upon a request for special findings, when the proceedings were electronically recorded rather than preserved by a stenographer.
Rule 53: adopting changes to match recent amendments to the Rules of Civil Procedure regarding the appointment of masters and the way in which they carry out their duties.
Rule 56(a) and (h): adding language to expressly apply summary judgment procedure to actions for grandparent visitation, pursuant to G. L. c. 119, § 39D.
Rule 57: changing language to make explicit that actions for declaratory judgments, pursuant to G. L. c. 231A, are subject to the Rules of Civil Procedure, with an exception for “actions to establish or confirm parentage which shall be in accordance with these rules.”
Rule 63: adopting changes to match 2024 amendments to the Rules of Civil Procedure, specifically regarding the unavailability of a judge before whom “a trial has commenced.”
Rule 66: adopting from the Rules of Civil Procedure the rule concerning actions “in which a receiver has been appointed”. This rule was not originally incorporated into the Rules of Domestic Relations Procedure.
Rule 71: adopting from the Rules of Civil Procedure the rule concerning orders made “in favor of a person who is not a party to the action.” This rule was not originally incorporated into the Rules of Domestic Relations Procedure.
Rule 77(d)(2): adopting changes regarding how the Registries of Probate may provide notice to litigants by electronic means.
Rule 77(e): adopting standards for transfer of cases and assignments for hearing based on Probate and Family Court Standing Order 2-21 and Trial Court Rule XII.
Rule 77(f): adopting language based on recent changes to the Rules of Civil Procedure providing for electronic signatures of judges and registers.
A redline copy of the current rules with the proposed amendments, as well as a clean copy of the proposed rules, appear at the links below.
Comments should be directed to Brian Pariser, Deputy Legal Counsel, on or before June 30, 2025 at brian.pariser@jud.state.ma.us or by U.S. Mail to Brian Pariser, Deputy Legal Counsel, Administrative Office of the Probate and Family Court, 3 Center Plaza, Boston, MA 02108. Comments received may be made available to the public.
| Date published: | April 16, 2025 |
|---|