- 21 -
instead, is that she failed in her duties as personal
representative of her husband's estate to fully administer the
estate before petitioning the Probate Court to close the estate
and discharge her as personal representative.
Since the Court concludes that the decision entered in this
case was not void as to Mrs. Dornbrock and her husband's estate
for lack of jurisdiction, the Court next addresses the contention
that there was "fraud on the Court". This Court has jurisdiction
to set aside a decision that has become final where there is a
fraud on the Court. Senate Realty Corp. v. Commissioner, 511
F.2d 929 (2d Cir. 1975); Abatti v. Commissioner, 86 T.C. 1319
(1986), affd. 859 F.2d 115 (9th Cir. 1988). In order to succeed,
Mrs. Dornbrock must establish that there was fraud on the Court
in the entry of the decision on December 23, 1993, based on Mr.
Young's alleged lack of authority to represent Mrs. Dornbrock and
her husband's estate following the death of Mr. Dornbrock in July
1987. The burden of proof is on the party filing the motion to
vacate, and such burden must be carried by clear and convincing
evidence. Kraasch v. Commissioner, 70 T.C. 623, 626 (1978).
This Court, in Abatti v. Commissioner, 86 T.C. at 1325, 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 cannot 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
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011