Case Update (24 June 2025): Wagner v. Chislett; laches bars Plaintiff from contesting “mail order” divorce from DR
This case involves whether or not a Dominican Republic (DR) divorce should be recognized as valid. The plaintiff is the former wife of the decedent, and she sues the decedent’s children and second wife, claiming entitlement to a surviving spousal share of the decedent’s estate. Plaintiff and decedent were married in 1958. In 1970, they moved to New Hampshire and purchased a property as joint tenants with right of survivorship. They had two children. In 1973, the decedent informed Plaintiff he wanted to move the family to Taiwan. Just under one year later, he then told the Plaintiff he wanted a divorce. They signed a separation agreement and certain other paperwork, including a Special Power of Attorney, which purported to authorize a lawyer in the DR to represent the Plaintiff to get divorced there. The Plaintiff signed the paperwork, now alleging that she didn’t read the documents. The decedent then, after the paperwork was executed, traveled to the DR, got a divorce, and then returned to New Hampshire. Upon return, he apparently told the Plaintiff he didn’t get the divorce. The family then continued their plans for a move to Taiwan. The Plaintiff signed a quitclaim deed to decedent to purportedly sell their NH house because of the move. In summer 1974, the decedent was in Taiwan. When he returned to the USA, he advised the Plaintiff of the DR divorce, told her they were legally divorced and he had registered the divorce in NH. They separated. Plaintiff then remarried in 1983, and decedent remarried in 1986. He had two children; the children and the second wife are the Defendants in this case.
There are a variety of legal moving pieces in this case, including the Plaintiff’s claims of fraud, misrepresentation, and breach of fiduciary duty. For the international family lawyer, the Plaintiff also sought a declaratory judgment that the DR divorce decree is void. Is it void?
Under New Hampshire law: “A divorce obtained in another jurisdiction shall be of no force or effect in this state, if both parties of the marriage were domiciled in this state at the time of the proceeding for the divorce was commenced.” (See RSA 459:1). The parties dispute whether the decedent was a NH domiciliary at the time of the commencement of the DR divorce. Regardless, the Court stated that “generally, and in particular in this state, there has always been a manifest reluctance to disturb a final judgment of divorce, especially after a second marriage involving the interests of third persons.” In other words, equitable considerations may preclude someone from challenging their divorce decree after a long lapse of time. Hence the equitable doctrine of laches - the delay, however, needs to be unreasonable and prejudicial. The trial court granted summary judgment on the basis of laches. The Plaintiff argued the statute supersedes/takes precedence over equitable defenses, but the Supreme Court of NH disagreed. The Plaintiff knew of the divorce decree, her conduct indicates she relied on it, there are now interests of other parties, and there would be resulting prejudice.
The summary judgment is confirmed. The Plaintiff is now barred from otherwise arguing that the DR divorce (which might have been invalid) is invalid.
