Case Update (7 Jan 2025): Korshunova v. Pershyn; Connecticut Superior Court recognizes Crimean Divorce and denies request to annul 2nd marriage

In January 2025, the Connecticut Superior Court granted the parties in this case a divorce.

The Plaintiff Wife had previously filed a motion to dismiss the Defendant Husband’s request for a divorce (even though she had originally filed, but then withdrew, the same request, and later asked for an annulment). Her motion was denied in May 2024. Therefore, the Superior Court was left with whether the parties should be divorced or annulled. The court agreed with the judge who denied the Wife’s motion to dismiss in 2024. The essential issue was whether the Connecticut Superior Court should recognize, as a matter of comity, a divorce decree entered in Crimea by Russian authorities, who were occupying that region.

The Superior Court explored whether there was any fraud on the 2nd marriage. The Wife presented testimony from the Husband’s “ex-Wife” (from the Crimean divorce), who said she believed them to still be married. The court queried why she hadn’t then sought further action in Crimea to challenge the divorce there. The court also noted that the Husband’s ongoing communication with his “ex-Wife” was, at best, evidence of adultery. The Wife also presented testimony by a legal expert about the recognition of judgments from Crimea. The court found that the legal opinion lacked clarity on whether the Crimean divorce was void or voidable. It found insufficient credible evidence that “any law or binding policy statements in effect in 2014 and 2015 required this [Connecticut] court to void any and all legal documents created in Crimea after the Russian occupation in 2014.” The court concluded that the Crimean divorce was voidable, but not void. Finally, the court found, as a matter of equity, that there was no evidence that the parties believed anything but that they were single when they married. There was no evidence that the Husband was aware that the official translation he obtained of his Crimean divorce decree may have been improperly translated. He was unaware that his divorce in Crimea might be invalid at the time he married the Plaintiff Wife. The parties had cohabited before their marriage, they purchased and renovated property together, worked on joint projects together, and had litigation against their former employees. They financially and emotionally supported one another, and operated as a married couple for over five years. The fact that the Husband may have been communicating with and emotionally attached to his “ex-Wife” in Ukraine is perhaps more evidence of the cause of the breakdown of the marriage, and not informative on whether an annulment is the proper legal path forward. There was no credible fraud, bigamy, or public policy rationale for annulling the marriage. Under the principle of comity, courts in the USA err on the side of giving full force and effect to foreign judgments absent evidence of a due process violation, fraud, or a violation of public policy.

The Plaintiff Wife’s complaint for annulment is denied and dismissed.