Case Update (9 July 2024): Butler v. Katani; Japanese administrative divorce not recognized as a matter of comity; in rem jurisdiction existed in Washington

This is a fascinating case about a foreign divorce that was secured, not through a judicial process like is typical in the United States, but through an administrative process, that is more typical in Japan. The spouses in this case met in 2015 in Japan, and had lived in Japan and then Washington State, and then separately in Japan and Washington State. They had a child in 2020, who was born in Japan (where Wife, but not Husband, were residing). In May 2021, the parties began dispute resolution processes in Japan to dissolve their marriage. In June 2021, the Husband filed dissolution proceedings in Washington State. In July 2021, their first Japanese ADR session occurred. Each retained Japanese counsel. On September 15, 2021, the Wife was served process in the Washington State divorce proceeding. Both retained Washington State counsel. The spouses agreed to stay the Washington State proceedings, because of the ongoing ADR proceedings in Japan. On July 1, 2022, the couple reached an agreement via the Japanese ADR process, which resulted in an executed “Settlement Agreement.” It provided for parenting, child support, conveyance of a Washington State parcel of real estate to the Husband, spousal maintenance, and a finalization of the Japanese and Washington State proceedings. On July 3, 2022, the Wife submitted a joint “petition for divorce” with the respective ward in Japan. She was given an “acknowledgment of receipt of petition for divorce” and a “certificate of all records” (certificate of family register) noting that the family registries in Japan had been updated. The Washington State court stay expired on August 31, 2022. The next day, the Husband moved for default judgment in the Washington State proceedings, because the Wife had not filed an Answer.

Two weeks later, the Wife filed a response in Washington State, and asserted a lack of jurisdiction over the marriage, asking that the court recognize the receipt of petition for divorce provided by the Japanese ward as a matter of comity. On September 19, 2022, the court denied the Husband’s motion for default, and ten days later, he filed a motion to enforce their settlement agreement. He argued that the agreement was not enforceable without the court granting an order of divorce. He asserted that their agreement required the spouses to finalize the divorce in both countries/jurisdictions, and it provided for a transfer, by quitclaim deed, of the Washington State property, which required a court order. The court granted the Husband’s motion to enforce. It declined to exercise comity, “noting that the ‘divorce paper submitted to the [ward] is not an order or a judgment.’”

After this ruling, the Wife filed a declaration from a Japanese attorney, citing the Japanese civil code that married couples can divorce by mutual consent and that the procedure is “administrative in nature, with no court involvement.” The declaration stated that the couple’s agreement is “legally effective ‘upon the acceptance’ of the divorce notification by the ward.” Their marriage was terminated in Japan, and were legally divorced under Japanese law. The Wife appealed.

On appeal, the court addressed the issue of in rem jurisdiction, specifically the Washington State parcel of real estate, saying, “[i]f the court has jurisdiction over the property of the marital estate, as when the property is located within Washington, the court may distribute that property.” It also noted that in rem jurisdiction only exists in the state where the real property is located. It concluded a separate action must be brought to address the Washington State parcel. Further, a proceeding to dissolve a marriage is a matter of in rem jurisdiction. It is based on the domicile of one of the parties. With the parties’ agreement to finalize the divorce in both Japan and in Washington State, and the fact that both the Husband was domiciled in Washington, and the Washington State real estate was located there, the court concluded it did, in fact, have in rem jurisdiction. The agreement between the spouses was a waiver by the Wife to any challenge to Washington State’s in rem jurisdiction.

Even if the Wife’s alternative argument - that both jurisdictions had in rem jurisdiction, which required them to co-ordinate their respective in rem jurisdiction - was colorable, the court concluded that Japan having in rem jurisdiction did not otherwise divest Washington State of its jurisdiction. Washington State did not abuse its discretion to decline to exercise comity as to the Japanese administrative acknowledgment because to exercise comity would have deprived Washington State of its ability to resolve how the Washington State property should be divided.