A.B.A. v. Wood

The Court does not possess inherent authority to set aside a judgement for intrinsic fraud upon the court. ORCP 71(c).

Respondent appealed the trial court’s denial of his motion under ORCP 71(c) to set aside the permanent stalking protective order ("SPO"), on the ground that it was obtained fraudulently. Respondent assigned error to the trial court when it did not set aside the SPO. Respondent argues the trial court abused its discretion because Petitioner lied in her testimony at the SPO trial. “[A] court’s inherent authority does not extend to setting aside a judgment for all types of fraud. Rather, a court has the inherent authority to set aside a judgment for extrinsic fraud only.” Dept. of Human Services v. M.M.R., 296 Or App 48, 51, 437 P3d 1233, rev den, 365 Or 194 (2019). The distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic fraud is when the fraud was committed. Wimber v. Tempe, 109 Or App 139, 146, 818 P2d 954 (1991). Extrinsic fraud consists of acts not involved in the fact finder’s consideration of the merits of the case. Id. While intrinsic fraud consists of acts that pertain to the merits of the case. Id. Because Respondent sought to prove that petitioner perjured herself in the SPO proceeding, it was considered intrinsic fraud, not extrinsic fraud. The Court held that there was no basis to set aside the SPO under ORCP 71(c) because the Court does not have inherent authority to reverse due to intrinsic fraud. AFFIRMED.