Case Update (17 Sept 2024): Levy-Gedacht v. Gedacht; Israeli judgment entitled to recognition as a matter of comity, or, in the alternative, practical recognition
The parties were married in Maryland on December 31, 1998. They have three minor children as of these proceedings. On February 10, 2018, the Defendant Husband filed a marriage dissolution action in the Superior Court in Fairfield, CT. On September 17, 2018, the Plaintiff Wife cross-complained. Both asserted, in their initial pleading, that they were a resident of Connecticut, although it appears that both were, at the time living in Korea for Husband’s employment at the U.S. Embassy. [Note: the parties’ separation agreement referenced the Husband’s employment at the U.S. Embassy, which might indicate that he was a diplomatic agent, which would have meant that the Korean courts had no jurisdiction under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations to divorce the parties in their place of residence, short of a waiver of immunity by the United States].
On January 17, 2019, the parties filed a separation agreement in the Connecticut proceeding that resolved custody, visitation, alimony, child support, and property division. That very date, the Connecticut court granted the parties a judgment of legal separation. Subsequently, Defendant Husband filed for divorce in the Rabbinical Court in Jerusalem, Israel, with both parties appearing with counsel on February 3, 2021, stating that they agreed to a divorce, resulting in the Rabbinical Court entering a divorce judgment. At the time of the judgment, Plaintiff Wife and the children were then residing in Israel. Relying on the divorce decree, on August 31, 2021, the Defendant Husband then remarried on October 10, 2021 in Washington, D.C. On July 14, 2022, the Defendant Husband filed a certified copy of the Israeli divorce judgment in the Connecticut proceeding, and, a few days later, asked that it be recognized. A few months later, the Plaintiff Wife sought to modify the alimony and child support obligations in the same case. The Connecticut Court declared it had no jurisdiction to hear any of the motions, but then, on October 14, 2022, entered a judgment dissolving the parties’ marriage. Almost one year later, the Plaintiff Wife remarried.
On July 17, 2023 and again on August 21, 2023, the Defendant Husband sought to dismiss the Connecticut divorce case, arguing that neither party had resided in Connecticut at the time of filing, and not for years before, and that the Israeli courts were exercising jurisdiction. On October 18, 2023, just about one year after dissolving their marriage, the Superior Court in Connecticut concluded that the parties had failed to meet the residency requirements to divorce there. It vacated its judgment and dismissed the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
A foreign divorce decree is due recognition as a matter of comity, unless the foreign proceedings denied due process, was obtained by fraud, offended the public policy, or where the foreign court lacked jurisdiction. The only argument asserted by the Plaintiff Wife against recognition of the Israeli divorce decree in Connecticut is that she was “coerced into accepting the divorce in Israel.”
The Superior Court ultimately concluded that the Israeli divorce judgment was entitled to comity, and that the Plaintiff did not provide sufficient evidence as to how she may have been coerced. Separately, the court concluded that the Israeli divorce decree was entitled to practical recognition (i.e., “recognition to a divorce decree rendered in a foreign nation in those situations where it would be inequitable to allow the party attacking the decree to do so”). In this case, the Plaintiff was estopped from acting in a manner that was inconsistent with her past conduct (of agreeing to a divorce in Israel), upsetting the expectations that were formed based on the Israeli divorce, and upon which the Husband relied when he remarried. The Connecticut case was dismissed.
