258E Harassment Prevention Orders Between Neighbors in Massachusetts

A neighbor who has been threatened across a fence, followed down the street, or confronted at the front door can ask a Massachusetts judge for a 258E harassment prevention order against the person next door. A neighbor who has been served with a 258E complaint appears in the same court, usually within ten court business days, to contest the order. The judge decides whether one neighbor harassed the other. The judge does not decide who owns the land between the two houses.

Many people search for a restraining order against a neighbor. Massachusetts has two civil orders that protect one person from harm by another. A 209A restraining order, which the statute calls an abuse prevention order, requires a family, household, or dating relationship between the two people. A neighbor is none of those things. The order between neighbors is therefore a 258E harassment prevention order under G.L. c. 258E. The Legislature enacted chapter 258E in 2010 for people who could not get a 209A restraining order because they had no family, household, or dating relationship with the person harassing them. O’Brien v. Borowski, 461 Mass. 415, 419 (2012).

The Appeals Court and the Supreme Judicial Court have reviewed many orders between neighbors. Threats, physical confrontations, and conduct meant to frighten a neighbor support an order. Noise complaints, calls to the police, disputes over a property line, and rude notes do not.

This page explains which court hears a neighbor’s complaint, what the plaintiff must prove, which acts count and which do not, what the judge can order when the two people live next to each other, how the hearing works, how an order is extended or ended, what happens after a violation, and the criminal charges that neighbors face. Attorney Joe Serpa represents neighbors on both sides of these cases in the Boston Municipal Court and the District Courts of Greater Boston.

Which Court Hears a Neighbor’s Complaint

The plaintiff files the 258E complaint in the District Court, the Boston Municipal Court, or the Superior Court for the place where the plaintiff lives. G.L. c. 258E, § 2. A neighbor in Quincy files in the Quincy District Court. A neighbor in Brighton files in the Brighton Division of the Boston Municipal Court. The plaintiff files in the Juvenile Court when the defendant is under 18. The firm’s page on harassment prevention orders involving students and children explains that court. The court charges no filing fee. G.L. c. 258E, § 3(c).

A neighbor who needs protection at night or on a weekend calls the police. The police help the person contact the on-call judge through the emergency response system. G.L. c. 258E, § 8. The judge can grant an emergency order by telephone when the plaintiff shows a substantial likelihood of immediate danger of harassment. The plaintiff then files the complaint in court on the next business day. G.L. c. 258E, § 6.

A neighbor’s complaint describes each incident in an affidavit. The affidavit states the date, the place, what the other neighbor said and did, and what the plaintiff felt and did in response. The firm’s page on how to get a 258E harassment prevention order explains the complaint, the affidavit, and the first hearing step by step. A neighbor who has photographs, doorbell camera video, text messages, or police incident reports brings them to court.

What a Neighbor Must Prove

The plaintiff must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, three things about each of at least three separate acts. The defendant committed the act willfully and maliciously, which the statute defines as conduct characterized by cruelty, hostility, or revenge. The defendant aimed the act at the plaintiff. The defendant committed the act with the intent to cause fear, intimidation, abuse, or damage to property. The plaintiff must also prove that the acts, considered together, in fact caused fear, intimidation, abuse, or damage to property. G.L. c. 258E, § 1. O’Brien v. Borowski, 461 Mass. 415, 426 (2012).

Fear means fear of physical harm or fear of physical damage to property. O’Brien v. Borowski, 461 Mass. 415, 427 (2012). A neighbor who fears a lawsuit, a drop in property value, or the cost of a new survey has not proved fear under the statute. The Appeals Court has held that fear of economic loss cannot form the basis of a harassment prevention order. C.E.R. v. P.C., 91 Mass. App. Ct. 124, 126 (2017).

The judge measures the plaintiff’s fear by what the plaintiff in fact felt, with no reasonable person test. The plaintiff must still prove that the defendant intended to cause that fear. Gassman v. Reason, 90 Mass. App. Ct. 1 (2016).

Words alone count as an act only when the words are a true threat or fighting words. A true threat is a direct threat of physical harm, or words that, in context, cause the listener to fear physical harm now or in the future. Fighting words are a direct personal insult that is inherently likely to provoke violence. O’Brien v. Borowski, 461 Mass. 415, 423-425 (2012). Insults, accusations, and profanity shouted across a fence are not acts of harassment unless the words threaten harm. The firm’s post on criminal harassment, 258E orders, and the First Amendment explains the speech rules.

Each defendant must have committed three acts. A plaintiff who seeks orders against a husband and a wife next door must prove three acts by the husband and three acts by the wife. The Appeals Court held that acts by different defendants cannot be added together to make three acts. C.E.R. v. P.C., 91 Mass. App. Ct. 124 (2017). One act is enough only when the defendant forced the plaintiff into sexual relations or committed one of the crimes specified in G.L. c. 258E, § 1, including indecent assault and battery, rape, stalking, and criminal harassment.

Acts That Count Between Neighbors

A threat to harm the neighbor counts. In A.T. v. C.R., 88 Mass. App. Ct. 532, 536 (2015), the Appeals Court held that a threat to make the plaintiff’s life a living hell was intimidation.

In D.C. v. K.D., No. 24-P-697 (Mass. App. Ct. June 16, 2025), an unpublished decision, two next-door neighbors had a long dispute over their property line. The defendant came to the plaintiff’s house, pinned the plaintiff against a wall, spat in the plaintiff’s face, and touched the plaintiff’s shoulders. The defendant later said that he would make the plaintiff’s life a living hell and that the plaintiff would regret it. On the morning of the hearing, the defendant put his arm against the plaintiff’s arm in the clerk’s office. The Appeals Court held that those three events were three acts of harassment and upheld the one-year order.

A threat across a fence counts. In A.K. v. G.B., No. 17-P-450 (Mass. App. Ct. Apr. 17, 2018), an unpublished decision, the two yards abutted. The defendant followed the plaintiff’s car while blaring his horn and screaming profanity. On another day, the defendant swore at the plaintiff over the six-foot fence between the yards and told the plaintiff to wait and see what happened. The next day, the defendant stood nose to nose with the plaintiff, raised his hands, and dared the plaintiff to do something. The Appeals Court upheld the one-year order.

Spitting, grabbing, and damage to the neighbor’s property can count as acts when the defendant intends to frighten or intimidate the neighbor. In Danny D. v. Eli E., 102 Mass. App. Ct. 901 (2023), a Boston Municipal Court judge found that a condominium neighbor had spat on the plaintiffs’ car and on a package delivered to their unit, had pointed a finger at one plaintiff and told the plaintiffs never to speak to him again, and had screamed at the plaintiffs to stop. The judge issued one-year orders after a hearing. The Appeals Court later reviewed the extension of those orders, which this page addresses below.

False reports to the police or to a state agency can count. In R.S. v. W.S., No. 16-P-571 (Mass. App. Ct. Oct. 20, 2017), an unpublished decision involving a father and his adult son, the defendant called the police to report attempted murders that had not happened, reported the father to the Department of Children and Families for neglect of the grandchildren who stayed at the father’s house, and emailed the father that he possessed lethal weapons and was prepared to use them. The Appeals Court counted the calls, the report, and the email as acts of harassment and upheld a permanent order.

Conduct That Does Not Count

Calling the police about noise does not count. In Gassman v. Reason, 90 Mass. App. Ct. 1 (2016), two women lived in the same public housing building in Brighton, one directly above the other. The plaintiff played the piano often. The downstairs neighbor complained repeatedly and called the police to the plaintiff’s door four times over several years. The police never found a violation. The downstairs neighbor also applied for a criminal complaint for assault and battery after a hallway encounter. A clerk-magistrate dismissed the application.

Three different judges issued or extended a harassment prevention order against the downstairs neighbor. The Appeals Court vacated the order. The court held that repeated complaints about noise from the upstairs apartment could not reasonably be described as intimidation. The court also held that a single application for a criminal complaint, even one that was dismissed, was not an act of harassment on those facts. Gassman v. Reason, 90 Mass. App. Ct. 1, 8 (2016).

Loud music and bright lights do not count without evidence that the defendant intended to cause fear. In C.E.R. v. P.C., 91 Mass. App. Ct. 124, 128 (2017), a homeowner who rented an apartment in her house to two tenants testified that the tenants played loud music at all hours and used strobe lights at night. The Appeals Court held that neither was an act of harassment, because the homeowner offered no evidence that the music or the lights were intended to cause her fear or in fact caused it.

The court held in the same case that damage done by a tenant’s dog was incidental to ordinary pet ownership and was not malicious. C.E.R. v. P.C., 91 Mass. App. Ct. 124, 126-127 (2017).

Notes, text messages, and property line conduct do not count unless they threaten harm. In P.W. v. J.K., No. 18-P-176 (Mass. App. Ct. Jan. 4, 2019), an unpublished decision, a neighbor asked the defendant to communicate only through a lawyer and to stay off the neighbor’s property. The defendant kept leaving notes on the neighbor’s car and property, kept texting the neighbor, and hung a bag of chocolates on the fence. The defendant also removed or threatened to remove the neighbor’s survey markers and power washed part of the neighbor’s garage.

The Appeals Court vacated both orders. The court held that the text messages were not true threats or fighting words, that the neighbor’s frustration at being ignored was not fear under the statute, and that the survey marker incident showed at most an economic loss, the cost of having the surveyor mark the line again.

Driving past the plaintiff’s house does not count as three acts when the defendant lives on the same street. In Smith v. Mastalerz, 467 Mass. 1001 (2014), the defendant drove past the plaintiff’s home three times within seconds while the plaintiff unpacked a car. The Supreme Judicial Court held that the three passes were one continuous act, because the defendant lived down the street and nothing in the record refuted that claim.

Damage to property does not count unless the defendant aimed the damage at the neighbor. In DeMayo v. Quinn, 87 Mass. App. Ct. 115 (2015), a stranger entered the plaintiff’s horse barn five times, took items from a refrigerator, rearranged hay bales, and threw items into a horse’s stall. The Appeals Court vacated the order, because nothing showed that the defendant knew the plaintiff or intended to frighten the plaintiff rather than anyone else on the property. The court wrote that property damage, without more, may not satisfy the requirement that the conduct be aimed at a specific person.

Insults and accusations do not count. In Van Liew v. Stansfield, 474 Mass. 31 (2016), a Chelmsford resident called a planning board member corrupt and a liar in mailings and told her during a phone call that she was uneducated and stupid. The Supreme Judicial Court held that the accusations were protected political speech and that the insults were neither fighting words nor true threats. The court assumed that one statement at a campaign event could count as an act. One act was not enough for an order.

Unproven assertions do not count. In M.N. v. W.M., No. 17-P-114 (Mass. App. Ct. Oct. 12, 2017), an unpublished decision, a dispute between neighbors began after the plaintiff reported the defendant’s car for parking the wrong way on her street. The defendant received a fifteen dollar ticket. The plaintiff then alleged that the defendant threatened to get even, aimed spotlights at her house, threw trash on her property, broke her fence with stored junk, and obtained a handicapped parking space in front of her house.

A District Court judge declined to extend the temporary order. The Appeals Court upheld that decision, because the plaintiff offered nothing beyond her own affidavit for three of the acts and offered no evidence that the parking space application was malicious.

What the Judge Can Order

A judge can order the defendant to refrain from abusing or harassing the plaintiff, to refrain from contacting the plaintiff, and to remain away from the plaintiff’s household or workplace. The judge can also order the defendant to pay the plaintiff’s losses, including the cost of replacing locks, the cost of repairing damaged property, medical expenses, and reasonable attorney’s fees. G.L. c. 258E, § 3(a). Each order lasts up to one year. G.L. c. 258E, § 3(d).

A stay-away order between neighbors needs careful terms, because a defendant who lives next door cannot stay one hundred yards from the plaintiff’s house. Chapter 258E contains no provision that allows a judge to order a defendant to vacate a residence. The Trial Court’s guidelines tell judges that a stay-away order should not ordinarily be used to remove a defendant from a residence.

The guidelines also tell judges that a stay-away order must be written in plain language that the parties and the police understand, that distances of twenty to one hundred yards are usually sufficient, and that the judge should fashion the order to the need for protection shown by the evidence at the hearing. Guideline 4:00 of the Guidelines for Judicial Practice: Harassment Prevention Proceedings (October 2025). A stay-away order from a specific location that states no distance prohibits the defendant from entering the boundary of that property and from standing close enough to the property to harass the plaintiff. Guideline 4:00.

Judges write these orders to fit the two properties. In A.K. v. G.B., the judge set the distance at ten yards, which was the distance from the plaintiff’s house to the fence between the two yards. In M.N. v. W.M., the Appeals Court wrote that a judge who finds harassment can prohibit the defendant from using a parking space in front of the plaintiff’s house as part of a stay-away order, even though the city’s traffic commission granted the defendant that space. A no-contact order prohibits contact by every means, including notes left on a car, text messages, and messages passed through another neighbor.

A judge who issues a temporary order on a finding of a substantial likelihood of immediate danger of harassment must suspend the defendant’s license to carry or firearm identification card and must order the defendant to surrender firearms. G.L. c. 258E, § 4A. The firm’s page on firearm surrender under a 258E harassment prevention order explains that procedure.

Mutual orders, one against each neighbor, are rare. The guidelines tell judges to issue them only when each neighbor proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the other neighbor harassed them, to state on the record the facts that support each order, and to write each order in terms that let the police tell which neighbor violated it. Guideline 6:06. A neighbor who was served with a complaint and who has their own account of threats files a separate complaint. The judge can hear both complaints at the same hearing.

The Hearing

The judge can issue a temporary order on the day the plaintiff files, after hearing only the plaintiff, when the plaintiff shows a substantial likelihood of immediate danger of harassment. The court must then hear the defendant not later than ten court business days after the temporary order. G.L. c. 258E, § 5. The police serve the complaint, the affidavit, and the order on the defendant. The temporary order continues in effect without a further order of the court when the defendant does not appear. G.L. c. 258E, § 5.

The rules of evidence are relaxed at the hearing. The judge may consider the affidavit, the testimony of both neighbors, video from a doorbell or security camera, photographs, text messages, and police incident reports, as long as the judge is fair about what the judge admits and relies on. Frizado v. Frizado, 420 Mass. 592, 597-598 (1995). The defendant has the right to cross-examine the plaintiff and the plaintiff’s witnesses and the right to testify and present evidence.

The judge decides which neighbor to believe. In A.K. v. G.B., another neighbor testified that he did not hear the threats. The judge credited the plaintiff anyway, because the witness had not said that the threats did not happen. The Appeals Court does not substitute its judgment for the judge’s on which witness told the truth. D.C. v. K.D., No. 24-P-697 (Mass. App. Ct. June 16, 2025).

A judge who finds three acts need not find that each act caused fear by itself. The question is whether the entire course of conduct caused fear, intimidation, abuse, or damage to property. O’Brien v. Borowski, 461 Mass. 415, 426 n.8 (2012). The judge must still find that the defendant committed each of the three acts with the intent to cause one of those harms. Seney v. Morhy, 467 Mass. 58, 62 (2014).

Recording a conversation without the knowledge of every participant is a crime in Massachusetts under G.L. c. 272, § 99. A neighbor who records a confrontation holds the phone in plain view and says that the recording is on. Video without sound from a doorbell or security camera does not record a conversation. The firm’s post on secret recordings at a protective order hearing explains what happens to a secret recording in court.

A defendant who is also facing criminal charges for the same incident, such as assault and battery or threats, should talk with a lawyer before testifying at the 258E hearing. The defendant’s testimony is a sworn account that the prosecutor can use in the criminal case. The judge may draw an adverse inference from a defendant’s silence in a civil case, but silence alone does not satisfy the plaintiff’s burden. Frizado v. Frizado, 420 Mass. 592 (1995). The firm’s page on the Fifth Amendment in Massachusetts civil cases explains how a lawyer handles the two cases together.

Extending, Changing, or Ending the Order

The plaintiff who appears on the expiration date can ask the judge to extend the order. The judge decides whether an extension is reasonably necessary to protect the plaintiff. The judge can also enter a permanent order. G.L. c. 258E, § 3(d).

The plaintiff must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, a continuing need for protection. The plaintiff does not have to prove the original acts again. The defendant cannot relitigate those acts. Yasmin Y. v. Queshon Q., 101 Mass. App. Ct. 252, 259 (2022). The absence of new harassment while the order was in effect is not, by itself, a reason to deny the extension. G.L. c. 258E, § 3(d).

An extension still requires evidence. In Danny D. v. Eli E., 102 Mass. App. Ct. 901 (2023), two condominium neighbors asked the Boston Municipal Court to extend their orders a second time. The plaintiffs submitted the original affidavits and the transcript of the first hearing and offered no new evidence, not even evidence that the defendant still lived in the building. The Appeals Court vacated the extensions. The court wrote that the original acts, spitting on a car and a package, pointing a finger, and screaming, did not show a need for an order of indefinite duration.

In K.R. v. N.S., No. 25-P-563 (Mass. App. Ct. Oct. 9, 2026), an unpublished decision, the plaintiff’s affidavit alleged that an upstairs condominium neighbor had thrown a pot at the plaintiff’s father, damaged the plaintiff’s front door, played music loud enough to make the plaintiff’s home vibrate, and stomped on the floor after the police left. The plaintiff testified at the extension hearing that she did not feel safe in her home while the defendant lived upstairs. The Appeals Court upheld the one-year extension.

Either neighbor can ask the judge to modify the order at any time, with notice to the other neighbor. G.L. c. 258E, § 3(e). A defendant who asks the judge to end the order before it expires must prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that circumstances have changed significantly and that the order is no longer needed. The passage of time and compliance with the order are not enough by themselves. Guideline 6:05. A plaintiff who no longer wants the order asks the judge to terminate the order. The plaintiff bears no burden at that hearing. Guideline 6:05.

The clerk sends every order to the Commissioner of Probation for entry in the statewide domestic violence record keeping system. G.L. c. 258E, § 9. The record stays in that system after the order expires. The record is not a criminal record and does not appear on a CORI report. A judge in any later 209A or 258E case involving the same person sees the record.

A judge who vacates an order directs the police department to destroy its record of the order. The Commissioner of Probation’s record remains. The Supreme Judicial Court held in Piper P. v. Barron B., SJC-13854 (October 5, 2026), that a judge can expunge the record only when the plaintiff obtained the order through fraud on the court. The firm’s page on expunging a 209A restraining order or 258E harassment prevention order explains that standard.

What Happens When a Neighbor Violates the Order

A violation of a harassment prevention order is a crime, punishable by up to two and one half years in a house of correction, a fine of up to $5,000, or both. G.L. c. 258E, § 9. A police officer who has probable cause to believe that the defendant violated a stay-away or no-contact order must arrest the defendant. G.L. c. 258E, § 8. The Commonwealth prosecutes the violation in the District Court or the Boston Municipal Court. The firm’s page on violating a 258E harassment prevention order explains the elements and the defenses.

A no-contact order prohibits notes, texts, calls, and messages passed through another neighbor. A stay-away order from the plaintiff’s home prohibits the defendant from stepping onto the plaintiff’s property and from standing at the property line close enough to harass the plaintiff. Guideline 4:00. A defendant who mows the lawn in the defendant’s own yard has not violated a stay-away order that names the plaintiff’s property. A defendant who stands at the fence and yells at the plaintiff has violated the no-contact order.

The Commonwealth must prove that the defendant knew the terms of the order and intentionally violated an enforceable term. A defendant who did not know of the order, or who passed the plaintiff on a public street by chance, has a defense. The judge in the criminal case can also order the defendant to pay the plaintiff’s losses and to complete a treatment program. G.L. c. 258E, § 9.

Criminal Charges Between Neighbors

The charges that the Commonwealth brings between neighbors are usually assault and battery under G.L. c. 265, § 13A, threats to commit a crime under G.L. c. 275, § 2, malicious destruction of property under G.L. c. 266, § 127, trespass under G.L. c. 266, § 120, and criminal harassment under G.L. c. 265, § 43A.

A neighbor who calls the police about a threat or a push can expect the officer to arrest the other neighbor when the officer has probable cause to believe that an assault and battery or a misdemeanor involving harassment or abuse occurred. The statute makes arrest the preferred response in those cases even when no order exists. G.L. c. 258E, § 8.

A neighbor whom the police do not arrest can still face an application for a criminal complaint and a clerk-magistrate hearing. The firm’s page on clerk-magistrate hearings explains that private hearing, at which the clerk-magistrate decides whether a criminal complaint issues.

A willful and malicious pattern of conduct directed at the neighbor that seriously alarms the neighbor and would cause a reasonable person substantial emotional distress is criminal harassment, which the Commonwealth prosecutes with or without a court order in place. The firm’s page on criminal harassment explains the elements. A neighbor who enters the other neighbor’s land after being told to stay off commits trespass.

A criminal charge and a 258E complaint are separate cases. The judge in the criminal case can order the defendant to stay away from the neighbor as a condition of release. The 258E judge can issue the civil order whether or not the Commonwealth prosecutes. A conviction in the criminal case is a criminal record. The 258E order is not.

A Neighbor Who Is Sued for Filing the Complaint

Filing a 258E complaint is petitioning activity protected by the Massachusetts anti-SLAPP statute, G.L. c. 231, § 59H. Van Liew v. Stansfield, 474 Mass. 31 (2016). A neighbor who is sued for abuse of process or malicious prosecution over a 258E complaint can file a special motion to dismiss the lawsuit. The lawsuit continues only when the person who brought it shows that the 258E complaint had no reasonable factual support or arguable basis in law and caused actual injury, such as attorney’s fees spent contesting the order.

In Van Liew, the Supreme Judicial Court held that the planning board member’s complaint, which rested on political accusations and insults, had no reasonable basis. The Court therefore allowed the lawsuit against her to continue. A neighbor who applies for an order on a true account of threats or violence is protected even when the judge denies the order.

Attorney Serpa’s Representation in These Cases

Attorney Serpa represents the neighbor who needs an order and the neighbor who has been served with one. Attorney Serpa reviews the complaint, the affidavit, the recordings, the messages, and the police reports, prepares the testimony and the exhibits, and appears at the hearing himself. Serpa Law Office is a one-lawyer office. A neighbor who calls on the day the judge issues the temporary order gives Attorney Serpa the full ten court business days to prepare. Attorney Serpa appears in the Boston Municipal Court and the District Courts of Greater Boston. Call 617.936.0201 for a confidential consultation.

Frequently Asked Questions About Harassment Prevention Orders Between Neighbors

Related Serpa Law Office Resources

• Massachusetts 258E Harassment Prevention Orders: Defense and Plaintiff Representation
• How to Get a 258E Harassment Prevention Order in Massachusetts
• Criminal Violation of a 258E Harassment Prevention Order
• Expunging a Massachusetts 209A Restraining Order or 258E Harassment Prevention Order From the Registry
• 258E Harassment Prevention Orders Involving Students and Children in Massachusetts
• Roommate Restraining Orders in Massachusetts: College Dorms, Student Apartments and Criminal Charges
• Firearm Surrender Under a Massachusetts 258E Harassment Prevention Order
• Trespass in Massachusetts
• Massachusetts Criminal Harassment Defense
• Threats to Commit a Crime in Massachusetts
• Malicious Destruction of Property in Massachusetts
• Massachusetts Clerk-Magistrate Hearings
• Criminal Harassment, 258E Orders, and the First Amendment
• When Does Unwanted Contact Become Harassment Under Massachusetts Law?
• Record Treatment of Massachusetts 209A and 258E Protective Orders
• The Fifth Amendment in Massachusetts Civil Cases
• Digital Evidence in Massachusetts Criminal Cases
• Massachusetts Restraining Orders and Harassment Prevention Orders