Case Update (4 Jan 2024): Teixeira v. Teixeira; divorce dismissed on forum non conveniens grounds
In a very short opinion, the Supreme Court of NY, First Department, Appellate Division, affirmed the dismissal of the Wife’s NY divorce matter on the grounds of NY being an inconvenient forum (NY CPLR 327). Both spouses were Brazilian citizens, married in Brazil, with an emancipated daughter. The spouses were married for 20 years, of which they spent less than 4 years in NY. The Husband’s job was in international finance, and the family relocated for his employment in 2017. He has not lived or worked in NY since 2021. Their child left for college soon after the parties moved to NY. The family maintained significant assets in Brazil, including a home, other real estate, a company, a car, and bank and other accounts. The Wife initiated the NY divorce action, and then the Husband, after the NY action was commenced, filed in Brazil. In the NY action, the Husband submitted an affidavit by his Brazilian lawyer that attested that, under Brazilian law, the Brazilian courts have exclusive jurisdiction over all the parties’ assets in Brazil, and even if the NY court rendered a divorce judgment, the Brazilian property distribution issues would nevertheless have to be litigated in Brazil. The Wife argued that litigating in and obtaining discovery in the Brazilian courts was less efficient than NY or otherwise inferior to that in the NY courts. The court found this argument unavailing.
The fact that the parties may have been domiciliaries (which is in doubt in this case because the Wife signed certain paperwork in 2019 in Brazil that claimed she was still a Brazilian domicilary) is not determinative as to whether a divorce action should proceed in NY. A court may have jurisdiction, but may still dismiss the case based on it being an inconvenient forum alone.
The court mentioned, but did not give credence to the Wife’s argument, that she should have had an evidentiary hearing or that the “first in time” rule applied here.
The trial court’s dismissal is affirmed.
