Key Takeaways
You do not have to simply accept abusive litigation. Massachusetts courts have several tools to address frivolous filings, bad-faith litigation, repeated meritless motions, and other misuses of the judicial process.
A motion is not frivolous merely because you disagree with it. Courts must preserve everyone’s right to raise legitimate disputes. A weak argument, unsuccessful motion, or unusual legal position does not always amount to abusive litigation.
Patterns matter. Repeatedly relitigating issues already decided, filing unsupported contempt complaints, making baseless emergency requests, or using motions primarily to impose expense and pressure can look very different from an isolated unsuccessful filing.
Document the history. A clear chronology showing each filing, allegation, court decision, and resulting cost can be more persuasive than simply telling the judge that the other party is harassing you.
Attorney’s fees may be available. G.L. c. 208, § 38 gives judges broad discretion to award costs and expenses in divorce proceedings, and Massachusetts appellate decisions recognize fee awards in response to frivolous or obstructionist litigation.
Sanctions are only one possible remedy. Depending on the circumstances, courts may deny or dismiss claims, award fees, impose discovery sanctions, or, in extreme cases, restrict future filings through a gatekeeper order.
Your response should usually be strategic rather than reactive. The goal is not to fight every accusation with equal intensity. It is to create a clear record that allows the judge to distinguish legitimate litigation from a pattern of abuse.
When Family Court Becomes Part of the Conflict
If your former spouse or the other parent in your case keeps filing frivolous motions against you, Massachusetts law does provide ways to address this misuse of the court system. The harder question is determining when aggressive litigation crosses the line into conduct that warrants attorney’s fees, sanctions, or restrictions on future filings.
Being on the receiving end of active litigation can be exhausting. Every new filing may require you to contact your attorney, gather documents, prepare an affidavit, miss work, appear in court, and pay additional legal fees. Even when the court rejects the allegations, the process itself can become the punishment.
That dynamic is especially difficult after a high-conflict divorce or custody case. The underlying dispute may have ended, but repeated contempt complaints, modification requests, emergency motions, discovery demands, and accusations can keep the conflict alive for years.
At the same time, courts have to be careful. People have a fundamental interest in being able to bring genuine disputes before a judge. A motion does not become frivolous simply because it loses, and a court should not punish someone for making a legitimate argument that ultimately fails. Massachusetts law expressly recognizes that even novel or unusual legal arguments are not frivolous merely because they are novel or unusual.
The real issue is evaluating the overall pattern, purpose, factual support, and legal merit of the filings. Understanding the tools available to a Massachusetts Probate and Family Court judge can help you protect yourself without getting drawn into the same cycle of unnecessary litigation.
How Massachusetts Courts Address Frivolous and Abusive Litigation
An Unsuccessful Motion Is Not Necessarily a Frivolous Motion
It is important to begin with the distinction between losing and abusing the judicial process.
Family law involves genuine disagreements. Parents can reasonably disagree about parenting schedules, school decisions, medical treatment, child support, or whether circumstances justify modifying an existing judgment. Former spouses can also interpret provisions of a separation agreement differently.
A judge’s denial of a motion does not automatically establish that the motion lacks a valid basis for filing.
The law reflects this distinction. Massachusetts G.L. c. 231, § 6F provides a potential remedy when all or substantially all of certain claims or defenses are “wholly insubstantial, frivolous and not advanced in good faith.” The statute also expressly provides that advancing a novel or unusual legal argument alone does not make a claim frivolous or demonstrate bad faith.
That is a demanding standard, and appropriately so. Courts need to discourage abuse without discouraging people from presenting legitimate disputes.
Rule 11 Requires a Good-Faith Basis for Court Filings
The Massachusetts Rules of Domestic Relations Procedure provide another important protection.
Under Rule 11, an attorney’s signature on a pleading certifies that the attorney has read it and believes there are good grounds supporting it based on the attorney’s knowledge, information, and belief. The signature also certifies that the attorney has not filed the pleading for purposes of delay. An unrepresented party must likewise sign that party’s pleadings. Importantly, Rule 6(c) expressly provides that the service and content of motions, affidavits, and supporting papers are subject to Rule 11.
This matters when the problem is not merely that someone files frequently, but that the filings repeatedly lack a reasonable basis, contain unsupported allegations, or appear designed primarily to delay proceedings.
Still, a request for sanctions should be used carefully. Calling every disputed motion “frivolous” can undermine your credibility. A documented pattern of specific filings will usually support your request more effectively than broad accusations about the other party’s motives.
Attorney’s Fees Can Shift the Economic Consequences
Repeated litigation can become abusive partly because of its economics. Filing a motion may be relatively easy, but defending it can require hours of attorney time.
G.L. c. 208, § 38 gives the court discretion in divorce proceedings to award costs and expenses to either party. Massachusetts appellate decisions demonstrate how that authority can apply when litigation conduct becomes unreasonable.
In Krock v. Krock, 46 Mass. App. Ct. 528, 533 (1999), the Appeals Court recognized the Probate and Family Court’s discretion under § 38 to award reasonable attorney’s fees and costs to a party who successfully defended a frivolous contempt action.
Similarly, the Court in Hennessey v. Sarkis, 54 Mass. App. Ct. 152, 157 (2002), affirmed an award of attorney’s fees associated with obstructionist tactics even though the opposing party ultimately complied with the relevant orders and was not found in contempt.
But fees are not automatic. In Freidus v. Hartwell, 80 Mass. App. Ct. 496, 504 (2011), the Appeals Court recognized the judge’s broad discretion both to award fees under § 38 and to deny them where the necessary factual findings did not support an award.
Because the trial judge has broad discretion over attorney’s fees, focus on why the litigation was unreasonable and what it cost you. Simply showing that you prevailed may not justify a fee award.
G.L. c. 231, § 6F Provides Another Potential Remedy
Massachusetts also has a statutory mechanism specifically addressing frivolous and bad-faith claims.
Under G.L. c. 231, § 6F, a party may ask the court to find that all or substantially all of the opposing party’s claims or defenses were wholly insubstantial and frivolous and were not advanced in good faith. If the statutory requirements are met, the court can award reasonable counsel fees and other costs and expenses incurred in defending against those claims.
The standard is intentionally more demanding than simply showing that the opposing party lost. A § 6F motion therefore makes the most sense when the record strongly demonstrates both the absence of substance and the absence of good faith.
Discovery Abuse Has Its Own Sanctions
Sometimes the problem is not repeated motions but litigation through discovery. One party may repeatedly refuse to produce documents, ignore discovery obligations, force unnecessary motions to compel, or otherwise make the process unnecessarily expensive.
Rule 37 of the Massachusetts Rules of Domestic Relations Procedure provides sanctions for discovery violations. Massachusetts family-law practice materials distinguish negligent noncompliance, which parties ordinarily address through a motion to compel, from willful noncompliance that may justify sanctions. Monetary sanctions can also compensate the innocent party for expenses caused by the misconduct without affecting the merits of the underlying family case.
This is another reason to identify the precise misconduct. A discovery problem may call for a Rule 37 remedy rather than a generalized request that the court punish “frivolous litigation.”
Repeated Abuse Can Eventually Lead to Filing Restrictions
The most extreme cases may require something beyond attorney’s fees.
Massachusetts courts can enter gatekeeper orders requiring a litigant with a demonstrated history of abusive or repetitive filings to obtain judicial permission before making additional filings. These orders are extraordinary because access to the courts is important, so they are generally reserved for sustained patterns of meritless or abusive litigation rather than simply difficult or unsuccessful litigants.
However, a recent Appeals Court decision, Care and Protection of Prince, No. 25-P-1124 (Sept. 11, 2026), illustrates an important limit. There, a Probate and Family Court judge had entered a gatekeeping order requiring prior permission for further filings in a heavily litigated parentage case. The father later filed a care and protection petition in Juvenile Court based on similar allegations. The Appeals Court held that the Juvenile Court petition could not be dismissed merely because of the existing Probate and Family Court case or the gatekeeping order, because a care and protection action under G.L. c. 119, §§ 24-26 is a distinct statutory proceeding with different purposes and remedies.
The practical point is that a gatekeeper order can restrict abusive filings within the case or court to which it applies, but it does not necessarily eliminate a litigant’s ability to bring a legally distinct action in another court that has independent statutory jurisdiction. Courts may still address forum shopping and duplicative litigation, including through interdepartmental transfer or consolidation where appropriate, but Prince cautions against treating a gatekeeper order as a blanket prohibition on access to every available judicial remedy.
Frivolous Litigation Can Sometimes Become Coercive Control
Massachusetts law now recognizes that, in certain circumstances, misuse of the court system can constitute a form of domestic abuse.
G.L. c. 209A includes coercive control within its definition of abuse. The statute provides that a pattern of coercive control can include repeated court actions that a court has found are not warranted by existing law or a good-faith argument. The conduct must also be intended to threaten, intimidate, harass, isolate, control, coerce, or compel compliance by a family or household member and must cause that person to reasonably fear physical harm or experience a reduced sense of physical safety or autonomy.
That does not mean every high-conflict family case involving excessive motions constitutes domestic abuse. The statutory requirements are specific, and the circumstances must be evaluated carefully.
Still, this reflects an important principle: sometimes litigation is not really being used to resolve a legal disagreement. It is being used as another mechanism for maintaining control.
Common Examples of Frivolous or Abusive Family Court Litigation
Repeatedly Relitigating an Issue the Judge Already Decided
Suppose two parents litigate whether their child should change schools. After an evidentiary hearing, the judge decides the issue. One parent disagrees and, without any meaningful change in circumstances, repeatedly files new motions seeking essentially the same relief.
One unsuccessful motion might simply reflect disagreement with the ruling. However, repeated filings based on substantially identical facts can present a different picture. The prior orders, hearing transcripts, motion papers, and absence of new circumstances may become important evidence of a pattern.
Filing Baseless Contempt Complaints
Imagine that a divorce judgment requires a former husband to reimburse certain children’s expenses within thirty days after receiving documentation. His former wife repeatedly files contempt complaints before providing the required receipts or before the thirty-day period expires.
If the court consistently dismisses the complaints because the former husband did not violate the underlying obligation, the history may eventually support a request for attorney’s fees. Krock specifically recognizes judicial discretion to award reasonable fees to someone who successfully defends a frivolous contempt action.
Turning Every Parenting Disagreement Into an Emergency
Suppose one parent repeatedly files emergency motions whenever the other parent makes an ordinary parenting decision that the first parent dislikes. The allegations use dramatic language, but the claimed emergencies repeatedly prove to involve nonurgent disagreements.
Courts take genuine emergencies seriously, particularly when children’s safety is involved, so unsupported emergency filings are especially problematic. A documented history showing what was alleged and what the court actually found may eventually become more persuasive than arguing over each allegation separately.
Using Discovery to Increase the Other Party’s Costs
Consider a spouse who refuses to provide basic financial documents, gives incomplete responses, ignores follow-up requests, and forces repeated motions to compel.
The appropriate remedy may arise under Rule 37 rather than simply labeling the conduct frivolous. The court can consider sanctions designed to address the cost and prejudice created by willful discovery noncompliance.
Filing One Weak Motion
Now consider a father who files a modification request believing that a significant change in his child’s schedule justifies modifying parenting time. The judge ultimately disagrees and dismisses the request.
That is ordinarily a very different situation. Losing does not establish bad faith. Courts must leave room for parties to make reasonable factual and legal arguments, even when those arguments ultimately fail.
Fictional Example: When Repeated Motions Become the Problem
Consider a fictional divorced couple, Rachel and Mark, who share parenting responsibilities for two children.
Their divorce judgment contains a detailed parenting schedule and procedures for handling extracurricular activities and unreimbursed medical expenses. During the first year after divorce, occasional disagreements arise, but the parties generally follow the judgment.
Then the litigation escalates.
Over approximately eighteen months, Mark files seven motions and three contempt complaints. In one, he alleges Rachel violated the parenting plan because she returned the children twelve minutes late after a school event. In another, he seeks an emergency change in custody because Rachel allowed their thirteen-year-old to attend a sleepover. He files a contempt complaint alleging that Rachel failed to reimburse a medical expense, but the evidence shows Mark never sent her the invoice required by the judgment.
Several filings raise issues substantially similar to matters the judge has already decided.
Rachel initially responds to each one individually. Her attorney prepares affidavits, organizes exhibits, attends hearings, and repeatedly demonstrates that the allegations either lack evidentiary support or do not constitute violations of the judgment. The court denies most of Mark’s requests.
By the seventh filing, Rachel’s legal fees associated with these disputes exceed $18,000.
At that point, her strategy changes. Rather than treating the newest motion as an isolated event, her attorney presents the history.
The opposition includes a concise chronology identifying each filing, the relief Mark requested, the factual allegation supporting it, and the court’s disposition. Copies of significant prior orders demonstrate that some issues have already been resolved. Billing records identify the fees Rachel incurred responding to the repeated proceedings.
Rachel asks the court to deny the current motion and award reasonable attorney’s fees under G.L. c. 208, § 38. Depending on the strength and procedural posture of the record, her attorney might also consider whether other sanctions, relief under G.L. c. 231, § 6F, or eventually a gatekeeper order is appropriate.
The judge would still evaluate Mark’s current motion on its merits. The fact that he previously filed unsuccessful motions does not automatically make the latest one frivolous.
But the pattern changes the context.
If the judge finds that Mark repeatedly brings unsupported claims, relitigates decided issues, and imposes unnecessary litigation costs without legitimate justification, an award of fees may become appropriate. If the conduct continues despite prior warnings or sanctions, progressively stronger remedies may become more realistic.
Rachel’s strongest argument is not simply, “He keeps harassing me.”
It is the documented record showing what he filed, why it lacked merit, what the court previously decided, and what the pattern has cost her.
Frequently Asked Questions About Frivolous Motions in Massachusetts Family Court
Can I stop my ex from filing motions against me?
Usually, you cannot prevent another party from filing motions simply because the filings are frequent or unsuccessful. In extreme cases involving a demonstrated pattern of abusive litigation, however, a court may consider a gatekeeper order requiring judicial review before additional filings are accepted.
Can I get my attorney’s fees paid?
Possibly. G.L. c. 208, § 38 gives Probate and Family Court judges broad discretion to award costs and expenses in divorce proceedings, and Massachusetts cases recognize awards associated with frivolous or obstructionist litigation.
Is every motion my ex loses considered frivolous?
No. Losing and filing frivolously are different things. A legitimate argument can fail even when the person who made it acted reasonably and in good faith.
What evidence should I keep?
Keep the motions, oppositions, affidavits, court orders, relevant communications, and records of attorney’s fees. A chronological summary can make a long litigation history much easier for the judge to understand.
What if my ex keeps filing contempt complaints?
Defend each complaint based on the evidence, but preserve the history. Massachusetts appellate authority recognizes that reasonable attorney’s fees may be awarded to someone who successfully defends a frivolous contempt action.
Should I ask for sanctions every time?
Not necessarily. Repeated sanctions requests over ordinary disagreements can create more litigation rather than less. Strategic restraint can make a later request more persuasive when a genuine pattern has developed.
Can a judge punish an attorney for participating in frivolous filings?
Potentially. Rule 11 requires an attorney signing a pleading to certify that there is a good ground supporting it and that it was not filed for purposes of delay. Discovery rules may also permit sanctions involving an attorney responsible for misconduct.
What if the filings are part of domestic abuse?
Massachusetts now recognizes certain misuse of litigation as potentially relevant to coercive control under G.L. c. 209A. The requirements are specific, so repeated litigation does not automatically establish abuse, but serious situations warrant careful legal evaluation.
Should I respond to every false allegation?
You need to respond appropriately to matters actually before the court, but that does not mean every accusation deserves pages of rebuttal. Often the more effective approach is to identify the legally material facts, provide reliable evidence, and avoid allowing the other party to dictate the scope and emotional tone of the litigation.
Final Thoughts
When someone repeatedly uses Massachusetts Family Court to file meritless motions against you, the instinct may be to fight every allegation as aggressively as possible. That can sometimes play directly into the cycle.
A stronger strategy is often to build the record.
Respond accurately to legitimate court filings. Preserve prior orders. Track repetitive allegations and outcomes. Document the fees and other consequences. Most importantly, distinguish ordinary legal disagreements from conduct that actually demonstrates a pattern of frivolous or bad-faith litigation.
Massachusetts judges have tools ranging from fee awards and sanctions to, in extraordinary circumstances, gatekeeper orders. Those remedies become far more compelling when you present the history clearly and objectively.
When someone misuses the court process to prolong a family conflict, the goal is not to create more litigation. It is to give the judge a clear record of the conduct, its history, and its consequences.
About the Author: Damian Turco is the Founder and Managing Partner of Turco Legal and has practiced divorce and family law since 2008.
Damian Turco’s Bio Page | More Blogs from Damian Turco
This article is for informational purposes only and should not be interpreted as legal advice. Articles on our blog are written at a historical point in time and the information presented accurately reflects the law at the time of the article’s writing. If you’d like to better understand how the law applies to your case, schedule an attorney consultation by calling any of our offices or by clicking the Schedule a Consultation link on this page.