Decisions of Interest

The wife filed for divorce in Jordan in 2010, but withdrew that petition after she learned that she would likely get a better financial settlement if she obtained a New York divorce. She filed the petition at issue in this case in New York in September 2012. While the New York action was pending, however, the husband obtained a divorce in accordance with sharia law, in the country of Jordan. That divorce, which merely severed the marital relationship but did not deal with child custody or financial matters, was granted on Nov. 22, 2012.

The wife urged the New York court not to recognize the Jordanian divorce because, under sharia law, her husband could obtain it without giving her notice. She asserted that this circumstance was so repugnant to New York public policy that a divorce obtained in Jordan should not be recognized. The court was unconvinced, noting that the wife had been willing to submit to the courts of Jordan when she filed her own divorce action there. In addition, she had in fact had notice of her husband's divorce petition in Jordan, but voluntarily refused to take part in those proceedings.

The wife still wanted the New York court to decide the custody and financial issues. It refused to do so, based on the doctrine of forum non conveniens, except as regards the equitable distribution of the marital property located in New York. In support of its decision, the court quoted the case of Islamic Republic of Iran v. Pahlavi, 62 NY2d 474, 478 (1984), cert denied 469 US 1108 (1985), which states that while “nonresidents are permitted to enter New York courts to litigate their disputes as a matter of comity ' our courts are not required to add to their financial and administrative burdens by entertaining litigation which does not have any [real] connection with this State.”

Here, Supreme Court found that the burdens on New York's court system of determining maintenance and child support would be excessive because the wife and children have been living in Jordan for such a long period that their Jordanian lifestyle and needs are what must be assessed. All witnesses and evidence necessary to evaluate their needs would therefore be in Jordan, and discovery would require translation of Jordanian documents.' “Furthermore,” stated the court, “the enforcement of any rulings made in New York would prove difficult as this court's enforcement powers do not extend to the country of Jordan.” Finally, because the children have lived in Jordan for 10 years, New York courts lack jurisdiction over custody issues pertaining to them.

The court did agree, however, to handle the distribution of marital assets located in New York, citing Domestic Relations Law ' 236 (B) (2) and (5), which expressly provides that a divorced spouse who possesses an interest in marital property in New York may commence an action for equitable distribution of that property following the entry of a foreign judgment of divorce (see Peterson v. Goldberg, 180 AD2d 260, 262 (2 Dept., 1992), lv dismissed 81 NY2d 835 (1993)).

'

'

Jordanian Divorce Is Recognized, But New York Marital Property Issue Stays in State

Supreme Court, Kings County, has declined to entertain a woman's divorce petition because her husband has already obtained a divorce in the courts of Jordan, and it did not offend New York public policy to extend comity to uphold the validity of this foreign divorce decree. However, the court will entertain disputes concerning distribution of the couple's martial property located in New York. Ahmad v. Khalil, Supreme Court, Kings County, IAS Term, Part 5G (7/9/13)

The parties are Jordanian citizens who were married there many years ago. They eventually moved to New York and lived there together for eight years. About 10 years ago, the wife returned with the couple's three children to Jordan, where they all have remained since then. The husband stayed in New York, running his business, and still resides in New York.

The wife filed for divorce in Jordan in 2010, but withdrew that petition after she learned that she would likely get a better financial settlement if she obtained a New York divorce. She filed the petition at issue in this case in New York in September 2012. While the New York action was pending, however, the husband obtained a divorce in accordance with sharia law, in the country of Jordan. That divorce, which merely severed the marital relationship but did not deal with child custody or financial matters, was granted on Nov. 22, 2012.

The wife urged the New York court not to recognize the Jordanian divorce because, under sharia law, her husband could obtain it without giving her notice. She asserted that this circumstance was so repugnant to New York public policy that a divorce obtained in Jordan should not be recognized. The court was unconvinced, noting that the wife had been willing to submit to the courts of Jordan when she filed her own divorce action there. In addition, she had in fact had notice of her husband's divorce petition in Jordan, but voluntarily refused to take part in those proceedings.

The wife still wanted the New York court to decide the custody and financial issues. It refused to do so, based on the doctrine of forum non conveniens, except as regards the equitable distribution of the marital property located in New York. In support of its decision, the court quoted the case of Islamic Republic of Iran v. Pahlavi , 62 NY2d 474, 478 (1984), cert denied 469 US 1108 (1985), which states that while “nonresidents are permitted to enter New York courts to litigate their disputes as a matter of comity ' our courts are not required to add to their financial and administrative burdens by entertaining litigation which does not have any [real] connection with this State.”

Here, Supreme Court found that the burdens on New York's court system of determining maintenance and child support would be excessive because the wife and children have been living in Jordan for such a long period that their Jordanian lifestyle and needs are what must be assessed. All witnesses and evidence necessary to evaluate their needs would therefore be in Jordan, and discovery would require translation of Jordanian documents.' “Furthermore,” stated the court, “the enforcement of any rulings made in New York would prove difficult as this court's enforcement powers do not extend to the country of Jordan.” Finally, because the children have lived in Jordan for 10 years, New York courts lack jurisdiction over custody issues pertaining to them.

The court did agree, however, to handle the distribution of marital assets located in New York, citing Domestic Relations Law ' 236 (B) (2) and (5), which expressly provides that a divorced spouse who possesses an interest in marital property in New York may commence an action for equitable distribution of that property following the entry of a foreign judgment of divorce ( see Peterson v. Goldberg , 180 AD2d 260, 262 (2 Dept., 1992), lv dismissed 81 NY2d 835 (1993)).

'

'