New York Law Review

Tag: Foreign Decree

  • Rosenstiel v. Rosenstiel, 16 N.Y.2d 64 (1965): Recognition of Foreign Divorce Decrees Based on Domicile

    16 N.Y.2d 64 (1965)

    A divorce decree obtained in a foreign country where neither spouse is domiciled is recognized in New York if both parties appeared in the foreign court, either in person or by authorized attorney, even if the sole purpose of the appearance was to obtain the divorce on grounds not recognized in New York.

    Summary

    Mr. and Mrs. Rosenstiel were New York domiciliaries. They obtained a divorce decree in Mexico. Both parties appeared in the Mexican court. Mrs. Rosenstiel then sued to annul the divorce. The New York Court of Appeals considered whether a divorce decree obtained in a foreign nation, where neither spouse is truly domiciled, is valid and entitled to recognition in New York when both parties appeared in the foreign court. The court held that such decrees are valid, finding no violation of New York public policy as long as both parties appeared in the foreign jurisdiction.

    Facts

    Mr. and Mrs. Rosenstiel were New York residents and domiciliaries. They traveled to Mexico for a divorce. Both parties appeared before a Mexican court, complying with Mexican law. The divorce was granted. Mrs. Rosenstiel then brought an action in New York seeking to annul the Mexican divorce decree, arguing that it was invalid because neither party was a bona fide resident of Mexico. The lower courts initially agreed with Mrs. Rosenstiel, leading to the appeal.

    Procedural History

    The trial court granted Mrs. Rosenstiel’s request to annul the divorce and issued an injunction against Mr. Rosenstiel seeking marital relief outside New York. The Appellate Division affirmed. The case was then appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

    Issue(s)

    Whether a divorce decree obtained in a foreign country, where neither spouse is domiciled, is entitled to recognition in New York when both parties appeared in the foreign court, either personally or by authorized attorney.

    Holding

    Yes, because New York’s public policy is not violated when both parties appear in a foreign jurisdiction to obtain a divorce, even if neither is domiciled there and the grounds for divorce are not recognized in New York.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The court emphasized that New York’s public policy is not concerned with the grounds for divorce if both parties have submitted to the jurisdiction of the foreign court. The court distinguished this situation from mail-order divorces or situations where one party is not properly before the foreign court. The critical factor is the appearance of both parties, indicating a mutual intent to dissolve the marriage, regardless of domicile. The court noted that while domicile traditionally grounds jurisdiction, the appearance by both parties satisfies any public policy concerns of the state. The court stated, “It is no part of the public policy of this State to refuse recognition to divorce decrees of foreign states when rendered on the appearances of both parties, even when the parties go from this State to the foreign state for the purpose of obtaining the decree and to obtain it on grounds not recognized here.” The dissent argued that subject matter jurisdiction, based on domicile, is essential for a valid divorce decree, and that the fleeting appearance in Mexico did not establish a sufficient connection to the marital res. The dissent also warned that this decision could open the door to recognizing mail-order divorces. Despite the dissent’s concerns, the majority prioritized the parties’ mutual submission to jurisdiction as the controlling factor, reflecting a pragmatic approach to recognizing foreign divorce decrees when both parties have actively participated in the process.

  • De Meli v. De Meli, 120 N.Y. 485 (1890): Establishing Domicile for Divorce Jurisdiction

    De Meli v. De Meli, 120 N.Y. 485 (1890)

    For the purposes of matrimonial actions, residency is synonymous with domicile, requiring both physical presence and intent to remain; a foreign divorce decree is invalid if the court lacked personal jurisdiction over the defendant due to lack of domicile in that foreign jurisdiction.

    Summary

    This case addresses the requirements for establishing residency for the purpose of a divorce action and the validity of a foreign divorce decree. The New York Court of Appeals held that for matrimonial actions, residency equates to domicile, requiring both physical presence and intent to remain. The Court found that because the wife was not domiciled in Germany and was not personally served there, a German divorce decree obtained by the husband was invalid in New York. The court emphasized that a state’s jurisdiction over divorce matters depends on the domicile of at least one party within its borders. The decision clarifies the jurisdictional requirements for divorce and the recognition of foreign decrees.

    Facts

    The parties married in Dresden, Saxony, in 1870. In 1881, the wife left the husband in Dresden and moved to New York. In 1882, she commenced an action for separation in New York, serving the husband personally in Dresden. The husband asserted that he was not a resident of New York and that the court lacked jurisdiction. Both parties had been born in New York to parents who were residents, but had spent significant time in Europe after the marriage.

    Procedural History

    The wife filed suit for separation in New York. The husband answered, contesting jurisdiction and asserting counterclaims. The trial court found that both parties were residents of New York but denied relief to both parties on their respective claims. The husband appealed the trial court’s decision to admit certain testimony and exclude evidence of a German divorce decree. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment.

    Issue(s)

    1. Whether, for the purposes of a separation action, residence is synonymous with domicile, requiring both physical presence and intent to remain.
    2. Whether a foreign divorce decree is valid when the defendant in the foreign action was not domiciled in that jurisdiction and was not personally served there.

    Holding

    1. Yes, because in legal phraseology residence is synonymous with inhabitancy or domicile and it is in this sense that the term resident is used in the provisions of the Code before referred to.

    2. No, because a court has no extra territorial jurisdiction, and a person not domiciled in the state or country cannot be charged in personam by adjudication there, unless he is personally served with notice or process within it or voluntarily submits himself to the jurisdiction of its court by appearing in some manner in the action or proceeding sought to be instituted against him.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court reasoned that for matrimonial actions under the relevant New York statutes, residency is equivalent to domicile, meaning a permanent home to which a person intends to return. To change domicile, both the fact of physical relocation and the intention to establish a new domicile must coincide. The court emphasized the importance of domicile in determining jurisdiction over matrimonial matters. The Court held that because the wife was not domiciled in Germany when the husband obtained a divorce decree there and was not personally served in Germany, the German court lacked personal jurisdiction over her, rendering the decree invalid in New York. The court stated that, “a court has no extra territorial jurisdiction, and a person not domiciled in the state or country cannot be charged in personam by adjudication there, unless he is personally served with notice or process within it or voluntarily submits himself to the jurisdiction of its court by appearing in some manner in the action or proceeding sought to be instituted against him.” Because the lower court found that both parties were domiciled in New York at the time the German divorce was issued, the evidence of the German decree was properly excluded at trial.