Case Update (6 Aug 2026): Ali v. Osman; recognition of foreign divorce requires due process and no violation of public policy
Wife commenced a divorce suit in North Dakota in July 2024, where the parties and their children resided, and had resided since late 2022 and early 2023. In October 2024, the Husband moved to dismiss the divorce suit, arguing that the parties were divorced in their native Sudan on December 11, 2022. In January 2025, the district court refused to recognize the Sudanese divorce certificate as a matter of comity. The Husband appealed. On appeal, the Supreme Court stated that to determine whether it would recognize the Sudanese divorce, it needed to establish that the Sudanese court had jurisdiction over the matter and the parties and that due process was afforded. Since comity is not a right, but is discretionary, the Supreme Court analyzed the district court’s decision for an abuse of discretion. On appeal, the Husband argued several points, in addition to comity: that the district court applied the wrong legal standard, that there was due process, that the Wife is equitably estopped from denying the validity of the divorce in Sudan, and that their Sudanese marriage was not valid in North Dakota, and the district court could not divide property or award spousal support because no valid marriage existed.
The Sudanese divorce process involved the Husband pronouncing talaq three times prior to December 11, 2022, and then, on December 11th, obtaining the certificate of divorce. As of this date, neither party resided in Sudan. Instead, they had been residing in the UAE since 2015. Further, the divorce process was not one where either party were present when the divorce was granted. The Wife apparently learned of the divorce proceeding when the Husband emailed her a copy of the divorce certificate on December 19, 2022. The parties had been discussing a divorce with an attorney in the UAE in 2021 and 2022, and, at some point, the Wife commenced a divorce suit in the UAE, but the Husband responded to that suit advising that they were already divorced in Sudan. Ultimately, the parties dismissed the UAE suit (and when the family relocated to North Dakota, they resided together). In denying the Husband request to dismiss the ND divorce suit, the district court expressed its concerns about public policy and a lack of due process, the lack of domicile in Sudan, and the unilateral nature of the proceeding.
The Supreme Court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion.
