International Divorce between Ivanovo and New York

Case No. 11-18/2017

APPELLATE DECISION

July 11, 2017 city of Ivanovo

Sovetsky District Court of city of Ivanovo,

Consisting of

Presiding Judge [name keeps in secret],

in the presence of the Secretary [name keeps in secret],

with participation of the representative of the Plaintiff, [name keeps in secret],

the interested person, [name keeps in secret],

and Karina Duvall, as representative of the interested person,

having considered, in an open court hearing, the case of appeal of Plaintiff against the decision of Justice of the Peace of the Judicial District No. 2, Sovetsky Judicial District of Ivanovo, dated May 2, 2017, to dismiss the divorce action filed by Plaintiff against Defendant,

FOUND:

Plaintiff applied to Court with a divorce action against Defendant.

The action is motivated by the fact that on August 27, 2010 the Parties entered into marriage in the Office of the City Clerk, Marriage License Bureau Authority: Office of the City Clerk of the City of New York, 141, Worth Street, New York, NY 10013, United States of America, the Certificate was issued on June 14, 2012 in the Office of the City Clerk, Manhattan, New York.

The Parties have a minor child from the marriage, born on October 25, 2012.

The Plaintiff requests to divorce since the marriage with the Defendant did not go well, the Parties have different views on family and life values, on the way of child upbringing, and they have different thinking patterns. In spite of the Plaintiff’s efforts, the Defendant left the family intending to live in Ivanovo and to raise the child there without the Plaintiff’s participation.

The Parties have not been residing together for more than four years.

There is no dispute regarding the equitable distribution of marital property and the child custody.

By the decision of Justice of the Peace of the Judicial District No. 2, Sovetsky Judicial District of Ivanovo, dated May 2, 2017, the case concerning the divorce action filed by Plaintiff against Defendant, has been dismissed.

However, the plaintiff does not agree with the above decision, so, in his appeal he asks to reverse the decision, referring to incorrect application of the rules of the procedural law.

In the session of the appellate court, the plaintiff’s representative supported the arguments of his appeal.

The plaintiff did not appear in the court session, though he had been properly notified of the time and place of the hearing.

The defendant and her representative objected to satisfaction of appeal.

Having heard the plaintiff’s representative acting by proxy who supported the arguments of the appeal, having heard the defendant and her representative who objected to the satisfaction of the appeal, having verified the case materials and having discussed the arguments of the appeal, the court comes to the following.

According to clause 4, part 1, of article 222 of the Civil Procedural Code of the Russian Federation, the court shall to dismiss the case in the event when there is a case pending, concerning the dispute between the same parties, on the same subject and for the same grounds, which has been filed earlier in any other court.

In accordance with part 2 of article 406 of the Civil Procedural Code of the Russian Federation, a court in the Russian Federation shall to dismiss the case if the same case has been previously filed in a foreign court whose decision is to be adapt in the territory of the Russian Federation.

As follows from the evidences of the case, by the decision of Justice of the Peace of the Judicial District No. 2, Sovetsky Judicial District of Ivanovo, dated May 2, 2017, the case divorce action filed by Plaintiff (Husband) against Defendant (Wife), has been dismissed.

Such decision dated May 2, 2017 established that there is another civil divorce action filed by Wife against Husband, instituted on September 7, 2016 in the New York Supreme Court, County of New York, the United States of America, to support which Request for Judicial Intervention dated September 07, 2016, Notice of Appearance and Demand for Verified Complaint, Notice of Appearance and Demand for Verified Complaint dated December 01, 2016, Action for Divorce, Notice of Appearance and Demand for Complaint dated December 28, 2016, the Affidavit.

As Justice of the peace established that a civil case on the divorce action filed by Wife against Husband, is pending in the Supreme Court of the County of New York, United States of America, and the divorce action was filed on September 7, 2016, then the divorce action filed by Husband against Wife, is subject to dismissal.

As to the arguments of Husband and his representative, set forth in his appeal alleging that there is no international treaty or any other agreements on mutual assistance (recognition) of courts decisions between courts on civil and family matters between the United States (including New York State) and the Russian Federation, the court comes to the following.

By virtue of Art. 25 of the Family Code of the Russian Federation, divorce in court is subject to state registration in accordance with the procedure established for the state registration of civil status acts.

According to Part 3 of Art. 160 of the Family Code of the Russian Federation, divorce between citizens of the Russian Federation, or divorce between citizens of the Russian Federation and foreign citizens or stateless persons, carried out outside the territory of the Russian Federation in compliance with the legislation of the relevant foreign state by competent authorities that take decisions on divorce and the legislation applicable to dissolution of the marriage, are recognized valid in the Russian Federation.

According to Art. 415 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, the following decisions taken by foreign courts are recognized in the Russian Federation and require, as a result of content thereof, further consideration: divorce orders, annulments between Russian citizens, Russian and a foreign citizen, in other cases provided for by the federal law.

According to Art. 13 of the Federal Law dated November 15, 1997 N 143-FZ "On Civil Status Acts", the documents issued by the competent authorities of foreign countries, for certification of civil status acts registered outside the territory of the Russian Federation under the laws of the relevant foreign states in respect of the citizens of the Russian Federation, foreign citizens and persons without citizenship are recognized as valid in the Russian Federation, if subject to legalization, unless otherwise established by an international treaty of the Russian Federation.

Thus, in accordance with Art. 160 of the Family Code of the Russian Federation, Articles 415, 413 of the Civil Procedural Code of the Russian Federation, validity of the decision taken by a foreign court for divorce is determined by: compliance with the legislation of a foreign state (United States of America) concerning the competence of the body that has taken the decision on dissolution of marriage; compliance with the law to be applied in consideration of the case on dissolution of marriage; these decisions of foreign courts are recognized in the Russian Federation without enforcement procedure.

Under such circumstances, the Justice of the Peace made a justified conclusion for dismissal of the divorce action filed by Husband.

Other arguments of the appeal, including reference to the fact that New York Supreme Court may dismiss the proceedings because there is no connections between the dispute and the place of its consideration, do not refute the correctness of the court's conclusions, amount to reassessment of the circumstances of the case and the evidence examined by the Justice of the Peace, which does not constitute grounds for repealing the above decision in the appellate order. In the event of dismissal of the case in New York due to the absence of connection between the dispute and the place of its consideration, the plaintiff is not deprived of the opportunity to file new divorce action to the competent court of the Russian Federation.

Thus, the circumstances relevant to the case have been established by the Justice of the Peace correctly, all the evidence submitted by the parties have been investigated and verified, properly considered, norms of substantive law have been applied in the right way. The court finds the decision of the Justice of the Peace as lawful and justified, and not subject to reversal.

The court does not see any violations of the procedural legislation entailing the reversal of the decision.

Based on the above, in accordance with Article 334 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, the court:

DECIDED:

To affirm the decision of Justice of the Peace of the Judicial District No. 2, Sovetsky Judicial District of Ivanovo, dated May 2, 2017, to leave the divorce action filed by Husband against Wife, undecided; and to dismiss the appeal of Husband.

This decision becomes effective from the date it has been made.

Judge /signature /

Stamp: THIS IS A TRUE COPY

Judge /signature/

Secretary /signature/