搜索
UNITTWOINTERNATIONALDIVOICE:LITIGATINGMARITALPROPERTYANDSUPPORTRIGHTSSectionAJurisdictionandProcedureinInternationalDivorceLitigation1JurisdictionfordivorceorseparationproceedingsintheUnitedStatesisbasedonresidenceordomicile.Acourtinthestatewhereapetitionerisresidentordomiciledmayenteranex-partedivorcedecree,evenifithasnobasisforexercisingpersonaljurisdictionovertherespondent.Thecourtmusthavefullpersonaljurisdictionoverbothparties,however,toenterordersconcerningspousalsupportandmaritalpropertydivision.Subjectmatterjurisdictionoverdivorceanditsfinancialincidentsisconferredbystatestatutes.2Underthisruleofdivisibledivorcejurisdiction,anex-partedivorcedecreebasedonthepetitioner'sdomicileorresidencewithintheforumstateisentitledtofullfaithandcreditineverystate.Courtordersconcerningmaritalpropertyandsupportrightsarenotentitledtofullfaithandcredit,however,unlesstheforumcourthadpersonaljurisdictionovertherespondent.Basedonthesamepolicies,courtsintheUnitedStatesgiveeffecttomanyforeignex-partedivorcedecreesasamatterofcomity,butdonotrecognizeandenforcefinancialordersenteredbyaforeigncourtunlessthatcourthadfullpersonaljurisdiction.3Courtshaveseveralmeansofacquiringpersonaljurisdictionoverthepartiestoadivorceorseparationaction.Byfilinganactionwithacourt,thepetitionersubmitstothecourt'spersonaljurisdiction.Thecourtmayobtainpersonaljurisdictionoverarespondentbasedonhisorherresidenceordomicilewithinthestate.Forjurisdictionalpurposes,courtsconstrueresidenceanddomicilegenerouslyinthiscontext,extendingtheirauthoritytoindividualswholiveonlypart-timewithinthestate.Acourtmayalsoexercisepersonaljurisdictionbasedonarespondent'sgeneralappearanceinaproceeding,andarespondentwhofilesaresponsivepleadingwithoutobjectingtojurisdictionistypicallydeemedtohavewaivedanyofthesedefenses.4Morecontroversially,astatecourtmayexercisepersonaljurisdictionoverarespondentwhoispersonallyservedwithprocesswithintheforumstate.TheleadingcaseonthistypeoftagjurisdictionisBurnhamv.SuperiorCourtofCalifornia,whichupheldCalifornia'sexerciseofpersonaljurisdictionoveradefendantinachildsupportcasebasedonlyonthefactthathehadbeenservedwithprocesswhilepresentinthestate.BeforerelyingonBurnham-typeservicetoconferpersonaljurisdictiononthecourt,counselshouldbeawarethatforeignjurisdictionsmayrefusetoenforceadecreeenteredonthisbasis,astagjurisdictioniswidelyrejectedoutsidetheUnitedStates.5Beyondthequestionofjurisdiction,dueprocessrequiresthatarespondentmustbeaffordednoticeandanopportunityforahearing,eveninthecontextofanex-partedivorce.Thesameruleappliesininternationalcases.Ifastatecourthasabasisforlong-armjurisdictionoverarespondent,statelawmayauthorizepersonalserviceonthatrespondentoutsidethejurisdiction.Thequestionofwhethersubstitutedserviceispermittedisdeterminedbythelawoftheforum,butthemeansutilizedmustalsocomplywiththelawsofthecountryinwhichserviceismade.6Becauseofthetraditionoftreatingdivorceactionsasatypeofin-remproceeding,someformsofsubstitutedservicearepermittedunderstatelawwhentherespondentcannotbelocatedorservedusingconventionaltechniques.Inhollowv.hollow,thecourtapprovedservicebye-mailinadivorceactioninwhichthehusbandhadrelocatedfromNewYorktoSaudiArabia.Findingthatthewifehadmadereasonable,thoughunsuccessful,effortstoeffectservicethroughaninternationalprocessserverandhusband'semployer,thecourtconcludedthatthosemethodswereimpracticableundertheNewYorkruleandthatsubstitutedservicebye-mailwouldbethebestmeansofprovidingthehusbandwithnoticeoftheproceedings.7Serviceofprocessonanindividualinaforeigncountryissubjecttothelawofthestatewheretheactionhasbeenfiledandanyapplicableprovisionsofforeignorinternationallaw.TheUnitedStateshasratifiedtheHagueServiceConvention,andadherencetotheconventionismandatoryforserviceofprocessincivilproceedings--includingfamilylawmatters--inanyofmorethansixtycountriesinwhichitisinforce.Undertheconvention,eachcontractingstatedesignatesacentralauthoritytoreceiveincomingrequestsforserviceofdocuments.TheU.S.CentralAuthorityistheOfficeofInternationalJudicialAssistanceintheDepartmentofJustice,andoutgoingrequestsaremanagedbyacontractoractingonbehalfofthecentralauthority.8Asatreaty,theconventionpreemptsinconsistentprovisionsofstatelaw,andserviceintreatycountriesthatdoesnotcomplywiththeconventionisineffective,eveniftherespondenthadactualnoticeoftheproceeding.Apartywhofailstoraiseobjectionstoserviceinatimelymannermaybedeemedtohavewaivedthem,however.ForeigndefendantswhoarepresentwithintheterritoryoftheUnitedStatesmaybeservedwithprocesshere,providedthatservicecomplieswiththeapplicableproceduralrulesoftheforum.Notealsothatserviceundertheserviceconventiondoesnotconferpersonaljurisdictioninstatecourtoverarespondentwhodoesnothavetherequisiteminimumcontactswiththestate.9TheUnitedStateshasatreatyrelationshipwithanothergroupofcountriesundertheInter-AmericanConventiononLettersRogatoryandItsAdditionalProtocol(IACAP),whichalsoprovidesamechanismforserviceofdocumentsthroughacentralauthority.IftheHagueServiceConventionortheInter-AmericanConventionarenotavailable,serviceby