MK Family Law

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 ...

A recent 10th Circuit Case,  United States v. Mobley , addressed an appeal of a crime that related back to the mother's abduction of her children to Russia. Mobley (Father) and Osipova (Mother) had a daughter.  Shortly after Mobley filed for divorce in Kansas, Osipova abducted their daughter to Russia.  At the time of the abduction (April 2, 2014), Osipova was seven months pregnant with the couple's second child.  She gave birth 2 months after her arrival in Russia.  Two weeks after the abduction, the Father secured a sole custody order from Kansas related to the eldest child.  Shortly after the youngest child's birth in Russia, the father secured a divorce and sole custody order from Kansas for that child. (Note - this is a criminal case, so I am not clear how the Kansas court had jurisdiction under the UCCJEA over the youngest child to issue an initial child-custody determination).  In Spring 2015, Osipova secured a divorce, and custody and chil...

 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 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 June 23, 2020 opinion in  Cordoba v. Mullins raises an interesting abstention issue between a State Court divorce and protection order case and a Federal Hague Abduction return petition.   Ms. Mullins (Mother) allegedly absconded with the parties’ two minor children to Illinois on January 4, 2020.  After learning of the children’s departure, Mr. Cordoba (Father) filed an "international parental child abduction case" in Ecuador and enrolled the children in the Passport Issuance Alert Program .  On January 9, 2020, Ms. Mullins filed a dissolution petition and a civil protection order matter in Cook County Circuit Court in Illinois (which were consolidated into one State Action).   On March 18, 2020, Mr. Cordoba filed a motion to dismiss the State Action arguing a lack of jurisdiction.  That motion remains open and unresolved.  The Motion itself, according to the federal court, first raised the issue of the Hague Abduction Convention (despite not bei...

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...

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...