Eric P. Sousa v. Donna M. Sousa.

Summary

The court held that it was not entirely obvious that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to approve the parties’ stipulated postdissolution modification of the pension distribution, given the Superior Court’s general jurisdiction over family matters and conflicting authority concerning the statutory restriction on modifying property distributions. It further held that the defendant’s collateral attack was barred by principles of finality because she had an opportunity to raise the jurisdictional issue, consented to the modification, and could not show strong policy reasons for reopening the judgment. The judgment was reversed and the case was remanded for the Appellate Court to address the defendant’s unresolved fraud claims. Justice Espinosa, dissenting, would have held that the statutory prohibition made the jurisdictional defect entirely obvious and would have affirmed the Appellate Court’s direction to vacate the modification.