MK Family Law

Mr. Adjei and the U.S. government filed cross motions for summary judgment in a recent case before the U.S. District Court for the EDVa.  On March 23, 2021, the court granted the U.S. government's motion for summary judgment, but denied Mr. Adjei's .   This case revolves around USCIS's denial of Mr. Adjei's 2014 application for naturalization.  The key argument used by the U.S. government to deny his application was that Mr. Adjei's wife was not legally divorced from her first Husband before she married Mr. Adjei, and therefore, his marriage, on which his application was based, is void.   Petitioner's wife married her first Husband in June 1996 in Ghana, lived there for three years before moving with her Husband to the United States, and, while residing in the United States, divorced that Husband according to Ghanaian law in April 2001.  This divorce involved the wife's father and the husband's uncle submitting declarations of the divorce, later confir...

The Kentucky Supreme Court addressed a Husband's request for a writ of mandamus to compel his family court judge, Judge Hagerty, to dismiss his Wife's petition for a divorce because he had already secured a divorce in Jordan.   For purposes of this blog, I am going to skip over the merits of the writ of mandamus arguments and whether Husband was entitled to one (note: he was not).  I do want to discuss the basic tenets of these simultaneous (or proximate) divorce proceedings in the U.S. and overseas.   In the case of Iqtaifan v. Hagerty , the court elaborated on the following facts.  Mr. Iqtaifan met his Wife and married her in Jordan in 2005.  They then moved to Kentucky, where they resided for the entirety of their marriage, and where both of their children were born.  In July 2017, the parties traveled to Jordan to visit family, and it was apparently during this timeframe where Mr. Iqtaifan pronounced talaq and commenced Jordanian divorce proce...

On February 4, 2021, the Maryland Court of Special Appeals, in the unreported opinion of Chaudry v. Chaudry , affirmed that a mehr signed by the parties at the time of their marriage was not an enforceable contract.   The parties married in an Islamic marriage ceremony in 2004 in Virginia.  At the time, the parties signed a mehr .  After a tumultuous marriage, in 2018, the Wife filed a Complaint for Absolute Divorce.  The Husband countered.  At the conclusion of the trial, the court, among other things, ordered the Husband to pay the Wife a marital award in excess of $279,000.  The Husband contends that the trial judge should have enforced the provisions in the mehr , which he says would have required him to pay to his Wife the sum of $10,000 in lieu of equitably dividing their marital property.   The Maryland courts addressed the issue of a mehr in 2020 in the Nouri case .  The Nouri court elaborated on the basic understanding of a me...

The  American Bar Association's International Law Section  will host a free webinar on February 10th at 11 a.m. ET.  During this hour-and-a-half webinar, join  Melissa Kucinski of MK Family Law  and  James Netto of the International Family Law Group  as they take attendees through the top highlights in international family law in 2020 in the United States and Europe.   Registration can be found by  clicking here . 

My law firm will be offering a free webinar on January 13th at noon ET, where I will provide a summary of the most important international family law updates of 2020.  You can learn more about it, and register by clicking here .

2020 was not for the faint of heart, with a global pandemic and a U.S. Supreme Court opinion on the Hague Abduction Convention authored by the late Justice Ginsburg.  Here are the TOP TEN most clicked blog posts from MK Family Law's Family Law Across Borders  BLOG.   No. 10     Case Update: International Service of Process using the Hague Service Convention - Winston v. Walsh No. 9     Case Update: Hague Abduction Convention's application between Hong Kong and the United States after July 2020 Executive Order - Wan v. DeBolt No. 8     Case Update: Issuing a U.S. passport to a minor child, abduction prevention issues - LO v. NO No. 7      HCCH Update: COVID-19 Toolkit for the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention No. 6    Case Update: Recognition of Foreign Divorce Decree, Notice of Foreign Order, Court Deadlines - Derbez v. Derbez No. 5     Case Update: Simultaneous divorce proceedings, comity - Vica...

This is a really interesting case that addresses the issue of an I-864 contract.  This immigration form is completed by a U.S. citizen who commits to ensuring that an applicant for residency maintains an income of 125% of the federal poverty level.  This obligation is indefinite, unless a specific "terminating event" occurs.  In the case of Pachal v. Bugreeff , Ms. Bugreeff signed an I-864EZ on behalf of Mr. Pachal, her fiance.  Prior to marrying, they also signed a prenuptial agreement waiving alimony.  About five years later, Bugreeff filed for divorce.  The proceeding progressed, and nearly 2 years after the filing, Pachal was ordered to leave the marital home, at which time he sought temporary alimony.  Separate from the ongoing state court divorce proceedings, Pachal filed a federal suit to enforce the I-864EZ.  Ms. Bugreeff filed to dismiss the federal suit, using the abstention doctrine.   As a refresher, the Younger doctrine mand...

 Mr. Imad Jaffal sues the U.S. government for citizenship ( Jaffal v. Thompson ).  The underlying issue for whether Jaffal can be granted citizenship revolves around his parents' divorce, which occurred in Jordan.  Apparently, his father obtained a unilateral divorce from his mother in the shari'a court in Jordan.  The divorce was revocable and then turned into an irrevocable divorce after the requisite period of time passed.  Further, at the time of the divorce, both of Jaffal's parents were domiciliaries of the state of Ohio in the United States.  The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey concluded it could not recognize the Jordanian divorce, which was fatal to Jaffal's citizenship claim.  The divorce was unilateral and there was no evidence that Jaffal's mother had any notice of it, therefore it was not entitled to recognition as a matter of comity as it violated public policy.  Furthermore, it was, in all reality, equal to a "mai...

The Maryland Court of Special Appeals addressed a recent argument made numerous times before in virtually every U.S. state: if a couple is married overseas, particularly in a religious marriage ceremony, then the couple must also divorce overseas.  In the case of Melki v. Melki, the couple married in an Orthodox Christian ceremony in Lebanon.   The couple then began residing in Montgomery County, Maryland and ultimately the Wife filed for divorce years later in Maryland.  Dr. Melki, the Husband, fought the divorce, and among his numerous arguments was that Lebanon was the only appropriate jurisdiction that could divorce the couple ( i.e ., that Maryland has no subject matter jurisdiction).   As the Maryland COSA indicated,  "'[A]n essential element of the judicial power to grant a divorce, or jurisdiction,' is that one spouse be domiciled within the state at the time the complaint was filed. ...  A court must have jurisdiction of the res, or the ...

Thamilselvan v. Thamilselvan reads like a law school exam question.  The spouses, both Indian citizens had lived in Michigan with their daughter since 2000.  They owned a house.  In December 2017, the Wife and daughter left the marital home.  In February 2018, the Wife sought a divorce in Michigan, alleging abuse.  The Husband then petitioned the Indian Family Court for "restoration of his conjugal rights" in an attempt to reconcile.  He also asked for an injunction to prevent the Wife from continuing with her divorce action in Michigan.  Despite her fighting the injunction, it was granted.  The Husband then sought to amend his Answer in the Michigan divorce suit claiming he erroneously admitted the spouses were residents of Michigan.  The court rejected the amendment.  He also sought to dismiss the Michigan divorce suit, first using a comity argument in an attempt to recognize the Indian injunction, and then, when his first motion was ...

The case of  Mbatha v. Cutting reads like a law school version of Cliff's Notes, summarizing the potential choice of law options for the equitable distribution of Mr. Mbatha and Ms. Cutting's marital assets in a Georgia divorce proceeding.   The couple met while Ms. Cutting was on a trip to South Africa, where Mr. Mbatha resides. They married quite quickly in New York, where Ms. Cutting lived and worked, and, while on their honeymoon in Europe, things began to sour and they ultimately separated shortly thereafter.  Ms. Cutting, while pregnant with their child, left South Africa and moved to her parents' house in Georgia.  A divorce action was initiated.  The key focus of the Court of Appeals matter related to which law applies when defining marital assets and deciding how to divide them between the spouses. During the parties' trial, the Wife argued South African law should apply to the property division (as the parties' only marital domicile and beca...

 On August 19, 2020, the Third District Court of Appeal for the State of Florida, in Vicario v. Blanch , reversed the trial court's order staying a dissolution proceeding in lieu of a dissolution proceeding in Spain.   The parties have a complicated timeline of court filings in both jurisdictions.  The Husband first filed for divorce in Florida.  The parties began litigating, but then he voluntarily dismissed his Florida divorce action and filed a few days later in Spain.  Nearly simultaneous to when the Husband filed in Spain, the Wife filed her divorce action in Florida. Ultimately, the Husband served his Spanish divorce action on the Wife a few months before the Wife served her action on the Husband.  When the Husband dismissed his Florida suit, the case was closed.  With him then serving the Wife first with the newly filed divorce action, the Spanish suit took priority and was first-in-time.  Therefore, the trial court deferred to th...

The Claflins spent significant time and energy litigating in two countries over their divorce.   Ms. Zamora Claflin filed for divorce in Florida.  Mr. Claflin sought to dismiss her divorce petition, alleging that Ms. Zamora could not have legally married Mr. Claflin because she was already married at the time they said their vows. Both Ms. Zamora's first marriage and her marriage to Mr. Claflin occurred in the Philippines.   Therefore, the Florida court sent the couple packing to resolve the issue of Ms. Zamora’s sequential marriages in the Philippines.   A court in San Mateo, Philippines declared Ms. Zamora’s first marriage invalid because she lacked the legal capacity to marry her first “husband” as she was too young.  Mr. Claflin, dissatisfied with this answer, took his grievance to a court in Pasig City, Philippines, where he argued that his marriage in the Philippines to Ms. Zamora was void ab initio because her first marriage was never declared invalid p...

The Derbez v. Derbez divorce matter reminds lawyers that they must be familiar with their jurisdiction’s rules, procedures, and deadlines, and understand the complexity of the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments.  Mr. Derbez pursued a divorce from his wife in Mexico, where he resided, in 2015.  Mrs. Derbez fought this divorce proceeding, arguing a lack of jurisdiction, but she lost.  The divorce case apparently proceeded and the parties were divorced on April 19, 2016.  On August 2, 2016, Mrs. Derbez, who refused to recognize the Mexican divorce decree, filed a petition for divorce in Texas, where she resided. After some significant delays, the court finally held a merits-hearing on the divorce request on February 20, 2018.   At this hearing, Mrs. Derbez testified that Mr. Derbez agreed to a variety of financial payments to her.  When Mr. Derbez testified through an interpreter, he confirmed that he understood and agreed to what Mrs. Derbez sa...

The Superior Court of Pennsylvania consolidated two appeals in the case of   Ileiwat v. Labadi (2020 PA Super 132 (2020) ) and, on June 3, 2020, rejected the Husband’s argument that the Pennsylvania court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to order the division of the parties’ property or award support to the Wife because neither party was domiciled in Pennsylvania for the requisite period of time prior to Wife’s initiation of the PA divorce suit. The parties, both dual-Jordanian-US nationals, had been living in Saudi Arabia for the Husband’s work since 2003. In 2014, the Husband took a 10-month project in Philadelphia.  The family purchased a condo and their children moved to the United States.  Approximately six months later, the family traveled to Saudi Arabia to renew their visas.  While the Husband and children returned to Philadelphia in January 2015, the Wife detoured to their native Jordan to visit family.  While she was in Jordan, the Husband calle...

Mr. Choupak filed a suit for conversion and unjust enrichment against his ex-Wife in their former state of residence, New York. On April 23, 2020, the Supreme Court of the State of New York dismissed his claims.  ( Choupak v. Koroleva, 2020 NY Slip Op 31443(U) (NY Sup Ct 2020) ) Mr. Choupak and Ms. Koroleva moved from New York to London in 2010.  Shortly thereafter, due to certain unreported foreign bank accounts and wages from Ms. Koroleva, the parties learned they owed back taxes, so they entered into an arrangement with the Internal Revenue Service for payment.  Then, in 2012, Ms. Koroleva filed for divorce in the Family Court in London, with the parties entering into a Separation Agreement on February 22, 2013. The separation agreement was converted into a financial remedy order on March 4, 2015 by the Family Court.  Just over one year later, in May 2016, the IRS determined the couple had overpaid their back-taxes for 2010 and 2011, and issued a joint check ...

Two Italian nationals met, married in Italy, and then subsequently moved to the United States, where they made their marital home for 40 years, and had their children.  Both became US nationals. On a trip to Italy in 2015, the spouses had a dispute, and the Husband returned to the United States without his Wife.  In 2016, the parties filed a separation action in Italy based on consent, which was ultimately dismissed.  They then filed a non-consensual separation action in Italy.  A separation action in Italy is different from a divorce action.  It must precede a divorce action, but a divorce action does not need to follow (if neither party wants to request a divorce).  Both parties had Italian counsel, and the Wife ultimately fought the Italian separation action.  Despite her overtures, it continued.  In 2018, she filed a divorce action in New Jersey.  By now, both parties were back in New Jersey.  Upon a request by the Husband, the NJ c...

In a March 2, 2020 opinion by the Supreme Court in New York County in Federbush v. Shah (2020 NY Slip Op 50300(U)), the court addressed a multi-jurisdictional divorce suit between a couple that had married in Thailand 8 years earlier.  The couple had signed a prenuptial agreement on the same date as their wedding, which divided property by title, and Wife gave birth to a child about 2 months later.  The family lived in Thailand until mid-2017 when they then relocated to NY.  While Husband is American, the Wife’s nationality presented problems for her remaining in the United States for more than a set number of days at a time.  Approximately 1 year after their arrival in NY, the parties separated while vacationing in Thailand.  The family was embroiled in 3 separate court cases.  Wife filed a Hague return petition in NY that was denied, finding that NY had become the child’s habitual residence by agreement of his parents.  Before this decision was...

The Court of Appeal of the State of California (4th Appellate District - Division 3) issued an unpublished opinion on April 24, 2020 in Kwon v. Park (G057226) addressing a variety of  issues in a couple’s multi-jurisdictional divorce.  Ms. Kwon and Mr. Park are embroiled in divorce litigation in both Korea and California.  To get a fuller picture of the multi-jurisdictional interplay, one needs to also review the briefs in this case.   The spouses in this case are both Korean nationals who had a residence in Irvine, CA.   The parties separated in mid-2017 and Ms. Kwon filed a petition for dissolution in California shortly thereafter.  In her petition, she listed the marital assets of which she was aware, but noted a need for pre-trial discovery to fully understand all the assets.  Ms. Kwon then proceeded to serve Mr. Park with a variety of CA pleadings, including subpoenas duces tecum, letters rogatory to discover assets in Mexico, and a prel...

From Guest Blogger, Subham Jain in Delhi, India Implications of Lockdown on Family Law Cases in Indian Jurisdiction: Present & Future While many are enjoying the time being spent with the families, there are many who are facing difficulty in keeping intact their marital cord. There is a tremendous spike in the calls to family law lawyers where their clients are waiting for the courts to open to file divorce. Being forced to live together at these times, even small disagreements are turning out to be a major issue and further worsening existing disputes.  Rise in Domestic Violence and measures taken Since the initiation of lockdown, instances of domestic violence have increased. Couples are finding it difficult to cope with the increasing mental health issues. All this is happening when the sale of liquor is prohibited during lockdown, which is considered as intimate partner of domestic violence. Women are finding it difficult to report cases considering the proh...