Mark A. and Juanita D. Murdock - Page 6

                                                - 6 -                                                  

            proof is on the party filing the motion to vacate, and such                                
            burden must be established by clear and convincing evidence.                               
            Kraasch v. Commissioner, 70 T.C. 623, 626 (1978).                                          
                  This Court, in Abatti v. Commissioner, 86 T.C. 1319, 1325                            
            (1986), affd. 859 F.2d 115 (9th Cir. 1988), has described the                              
            term "fraud on the Court" as follows:                                                      
                  Fraud on the court is "only that species of fraud which                              
                  does, or attempts to, defile the court itself, or is a fraud                         
                  perpetrated by officers of the court so that the judicial                            
                  machinery can not perform in the usual manner its impartial                          
                  task of adjud[g]ing cases that are presented for                                     
                  adjudication.  Fraud, inter partes, without more, should not                         
                  be a fraud upon the court."  Toscano v. Commissioner, 441,                           
                  F.2d at 933, quoting 7 J. Moore, Federal Practice, par.                              
                  60.33 (2d ed. 1970).  To prove such fraud, the petitioners                           
                  must show that an intentional plan of deception designed to                          
                  improperly influence the Court in its decision has had such                          
                  an effect on the Court. * * *                                                        

                  The evidence adduced at the hearing on petitioners' motion                           
            falls far short of establishing fraud on the Court.  Mr. Griffin                           
            was counsel of record for petitioners, and no motion to remove or                          
            cause the withdrawal of Mr. Griffin as counsel for petitioners                             
            was filed until after petitioners filed the subject motion                                 
            seeking to vacate the decision.3  Thus, on January 5, 1994, when                           
            Mr. Griffin and petitioner met with counsel for respondent, Mr.                            
            Driscoll, Mr. Griffin was duly authorized to represent                                     
            petitioners in this case.  Moreover, the evidence is clear that                            

            3                                                                                          
                  Petitioners' motion to withdraw Mr. Griffin as their                                 
            attorney, filed on June 14, 1996, was granted by the Court by                              
            order dated July 3, 1996.                                                                  




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011