Maklad v. Maklad, No. Fa00-0443796s (Jan. 3, 2001)
2001 Conn. Super. Ct. 129, 28 Conn. L. Rptr. 593 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A foreign divorce decree will not be recognized under the principle of comity if the foreign court lacked jurisdiction because neither party was domiciled in that country, or if the decree was obtained through procedures that denied the other party due process of law, such as the right to notice and an opportunity to be heard.
Facts:
- The plaintiff and defendant married in Egypt in 1984 and soon after moved to the United States, residing continuously in Connecticut until September 15, 2000.
- The couple had four children, all born in Connecticut, and the defendant had worked for the same Connecticut employer for twelve years.
- On September 15, 2000, the defendant, without the plaintiff's knowledge or permission, took their three youngest children from school and flew with them to Egypt.
- The defendant's brother delivered a written statement to one child's school indicating the defendant's absence from the U.S. was temporary, lasting only 'three to six months'.
- On September 27, 2000, twelve days after arriving in Egypt, the defendant obtained a certificate of divorce there.
- The plaintiff received no prior notice of the Egyptian divorce proceeding and was given no opportunity to be heard before the decree was issued.
Procedural Posture:
- On October 4, 2000, the plaintiff filed an action for dissolution of marriage against the defendant in a Connecticut trial court.
- On the same day, the court granted the plaintiff's ex parte motion for temporary custody of the four minor children.
- A hearing was held on October 26, 2000, where the court affirmed the temporary custody order.
- On November 7, 2000, an attorney filed an appearance on behalf of the defendant.
- On December 4, 2000, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's dissolution action, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction due to a prior Egyptian divorce decree.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the principle of comity require a Connecticut court to recognize a foreign divorce decree when the party who obtained it was not domiciled in the foreign country and the other party was not given notice or an opportunity to be heard?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Jon M. Alander
No. The principle of comity does not require a Connecticut court to recognize the Egyptian divorce decree because the foreign court lacked jurisdiction and the decree was obtained in violation of the plaintiff's due process rights. For a foreign court to have divorce jurisdiction, at least one party must be domiciled in that country, which requires both physical residence and an intent to remain permanently. Here, the defendant's long-standing ties to Connecticut and his written statement that his trip to Egypt was temporary demonstrate he was not domiciled in Egypt, meaning the Egyptian court lacked jurisdiction. Furthermore, the decree is not entitled to comity because the plaintiff was afforded no notice or opportunity to be heard, which is a fundamental violation of due process. The court also rejected the defendant's 'practical recognition' argument, finding it would not be inequitable to allow the plaintiff to challenge a decree she did not participate in and immediately contested.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces key limitations on the principle of comity as applied to foreign divorce decrees. It demonstrates that U.S. courts will not mechanically recognize foreign judgments but will instead scrutinize them for fundamental compliance with jurisdictional and due process standards. The ruling establishes a strong precedent for protecting a spouse domiciled in the U.S. from ex parte divorces obtained by the other spouse in a foreign jurisdiction without proper notice. It clarifies that a brief physical presence in a foreign country is insufficient to establish domicile for divorce purposes; the court will look at the totality of the circumstances to determine the party's actual intent to remain permanently.
