Case Update (3 Nov 2025): Ende v. Reynolds; Case Remanded for Findings on South African Proceedings
The parties are spouses, who met and married in South Africa. Two days before their wedding date, they signed an agreement that dictated a transfer of money from one to the other, using the accrual method available in South African law, if they were to divorce. The agreement elected no choice of forum. In or around August 2017, the parties agreed to relocate to New Jersey. The Husband ultimately never moved forward with his relocation, and remained in South Africa. Upon learning that he was allegedly unfaithful, the Wife filed for divorce in New Jersey on November 30, 2021. In that divorce suit, she sought equitable distribution, under New Jersey law, of all the parties’ assets, including those in South Africa (and the UK, Europe, offshore, etc.). She also alleged that the Agreement, previously executed, was invalid. In Defendant Husband’s September 2022 Answer, he asserted that South Africa, not New Jersey had jurisdiction over the distribution of their marital property pursuant to their Agreement. On February 23, 2024, the Husband had filed an edictal citation with the registration of the High Court of South Africa, seeking declaratory judgment, without any claim for divorce, to enforce the validity of the Agreement. He claimed it had previously been properly registered under South African law. The New Jersey judge held a hearing, and determined that by “registering” the Agreement in South Africa, the parties had voluntarily conferred subject matter jurisdiction over the validity of that agreement, the valuation and distribution of their marital property, and the application of law to the courts in South Africa. Therefore, the NJ judge found its court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the South African assets, and was going to recognize the “prior” South African legal proceedings as a matter of comity, and declared that South Africa was a more convenient forum to resolve their equitable distribution claims.
During the trial, the Wife raised an argument that there was no personal jurisdiction over her in the South African courts, and her South African legal expert indicated that this meant the South African courts could not effectuate a marital distribution of assets. Of note again is that there has been no divorce action instituted in South Africa.
In New Jersey, there is a general equitable rule, although not absolute, that the first court to acquire jurisdiction has precedence, in the absence of special equities. The first filed lawsuit must be “substantial similar” to the second or subsequent-filed lawsuit (same parties, same claims, same legal issues). The first court would need to have jurisdiction, and therefore the second court would need to determine if its proceeding would interfere and waste judicial resources. There is also a public policy analysis - the foreign judgment must not offend NJ public policy. In this unpublished appellate decision, the NJ Superior Court-Appellate Division concluded that the NJ lawsuit is the ONLY divorce action ever filed. The South African suit is not a divorce proceeding. It was, “at best”, a proceeding to allow for temporary division of property in the face of an urgent issue, which has not been adjudicated. Further, the trial judge overlooked the argument made by the Wife that there was no personal jurisdiction over her - a woman who had been living in NJ for seven years. Additionally, the NJ judge apparently never ruled on the issue that the parties had property outside of South Africa, not just in South Africa.
Therefore, the trial court is reversed, with instructions to conduct a plenary hearing to address the above gaps in findings.
