Case Update (4 Nov 2025): Leite v. Leite; recognition of foreign divorce, implications with postnuptial agreement
The parties, both originally Brazilian nationals, married in Brazil. Prior to marrying, they designated a “separation of assets” marital property regime. During their marriage, they moved from Brazil to Belgium to the USA, settling in Connecticut for the Husband to take on a new role within his company in New York. The couple executed a postnuptial agreement in 2017 in Connecticut, which reaffirmed the marital property regime designation (referring to it as a prenuptial agreement), and setting forth additional terms that the Husband explained was intended to give the Wife 20-25% of his assets, and allow her to keep all her assets. During their marriage, the Wife did not work, but maintained the house and raised the children, who are now adults. The Husband was an executive at a large multi-national corporation.
Approximately one month after the parties executed their 2017 postnuptial agreement, the Husband filed for divorce in Brazil. In his divorce complaint, he clearly stated his intention to adhere to the terms of their postnuptial agreement. The Wife contested this action, claiming both parties were domiciled in Connecticut. The Brazilian courts proceeded, concluding that the parties maintained a Brazilian domicile, but did not decide any property issues because the parties had already resolved those issues through the marital property regime designation, and any postnuptial agreement would need to be governed by the law of the place where it was contracted, i.e., Connecticut. Neither party appealed the Brazilian divorce judgment that was entered in October 2018. On or about December 2017, the Wife filed for divorce in Connecticut. She sought to invalidate the postnuptial agreement in Connecticut - a position at odds with the one she took in the Brazilian litigation. The Husband argued a variety of things in Connecticut, including that the Brazilian divorce judgment should be recognized as a matter of comity, or, failing that, through practical recognition (an equitable doctrine in the law in Connecticut). He also argued estoppel and issue preclusion, among other things, in terms of the Wife taking a position contrary to that which she took in Brazil.
Ultimately, the Connecticut court recognized the Brazilian divorce judgment, extending it partial practical recognition, because the Wife had amended her Connecticut divorce suit to no longer ask for a divorce. As for the 2017 postnuptial agreement - since Connecticut law looks at whether the agreement was unconscionable at the time it was entered, and at the time of dissolution, the court had to assess whether the parties’ dissolution was 2018 (in Brazil) or 2025 (the Connecticut hearing date). It ultimately decided to enforce the postnuptial agreement, but for some discrete delineated provisions which were severable.
