Articles and publications

Here are some reasons why you should choose professional services of Karina Duvall, International Divorce Attorney?

Here are some reasons why you should choose professional services of Karina Duvall, International Divorce Attorney?

1. Karina Duvall has excellent professional experience.

2. Karina Duvall has worked in the court of general jurisdiction in Kharkov, Ukraine for 4 years, from 1991 to 1994. And also in St. Petersburg, Russian Federation, Russian Federation for 4 years, from 1994 to 1998.

3. Karina Duvall has a bachelor degree in the National University Yaroslav the Wise Law Academy of Ukraine (1995).

4. Karina Duvall has a master’s degree in the law department of the St. Petersburg State University, Russian Federation (1997).

5. Karina Duvall perfectly understands the Russian and Ukrainian legislation.

6. Karina Duvall was licensed as attorney in Russian Federation from 1999 until present.

7. Karina Duvall licensed by the Appellate Division, 2nd Judicial Department of the Supreme Court of the State of New York as a legal consultant in 2009.

8. Karina Duvall having complied in 2014 with Rule XI, Section 8 of the Supreme Court Rules for the Government of the Bar of Ohio, is designated a Foreign Legal Consultant and, accordingly, may render legal services.

9. Karina Duvall has a 99% success rate for my clients. Read More »

Procédure sur les affaires avec la participation des citoyens étrangers

1. Les relations des citoyens russes résidant à l’étranger de la Fédération de Russie sont régies par le Titre VII du Code de la famille de la Fédération de Russie, intitulé «Application de la législation de la famille aux relations familiales avec la participation des citoyens étrangers et des apatrides». Même dans le cas où les parties sont de nationalité russe et de plus si elles ont une double nationalité, la nationalité suisse et la nationalité russe, c’est l’article 160 du Code de la famille de la Fédération de Russie qui est à appliquer, celle que j’ai invoqué dans mon avis précédent.

2. La partie 3 de l’article 160 du Code de la famille de la Fédération de Russie prévoit directement que le divorce entre les citoyens russes qui a eu lieu à l’étranger de la Fédération de Russie dans le respect de la législation de l’état étranger concerné sur la compétence de ses autorités prenant les décisions sur le divorce et du droit applicable, est valable en Fédération de Russie.

3. Le Code de la procédure civile de la Fédération de Russie soumet les relations entre les citoyens russes résidant à l’étranger au spécial Titre V intitulé «Procédure sur les affaires avec la participation des citoyens étrangers».

4. L’article 415 du Code de la procédure civile de la Fédération de Russie prévoit que les jugements de divorce entre les citoyens russes résidant au moment de la procédure à l’étranger de la Fédération de Russie rendus par les tribunaux étrangers sont valables en Fédération de Russie et n’exigent pas une procédure suivante.

5. Je trouve qu’il n’est pas nécessaire d’examiner en détail les lois citées... Read More »

CERTIFICATION OF KARINA DUVALL ABOUT CUSTODY ISSUES

In accordance with Art. 65 Part 3 of the Family Code, the place of residence of children when parents live apart, is determined by agreement between the parents. Parties, at their discretion, come to the oral or written agreement on this issue, or settle the dispute in court. If there are no disputes about the place of residence of the child, the child resides with the mother. If the father does not participate in upbringing of the child, this agreement allows the court to pass a resolution for collecting Child Support from the father. De facto the judicial decision by court of collecting Child Support means that the parent, who the child resides with, can decide on any aspect of the child’s life. By analogy with the American Law it means Legal Custody. Read More »

APPELLATE DECISION

APPELLATE DECISION

Judicial board on civil cases of the Supreme Court of the Udmurt Republic, consisting of:
Presiding Judge T.V. Smirnova,
Judges I.L. Glukhova, A.A. Rogozin,
with Secretary S.S. Shibanova,
having considered in the public hearing in the city of Izhevsk on August 24, 2016 the civil case based on the claim filed by [keeps in secret] (father) to [keeps in secret] (mother) on establishing the order of communication with the child,
pursuant to the appeal filed by Karina Duvall, representative of father, against the decision of Octyabrsky District Court of the city of Izhevsk, the Udmurt Republic, dated May 10, 2016, which ruled:
"The claims stated by father to mother on establishing the order of communication with the child to be satisfied partially.
To establish for father the following order of communication with his son, [name keeps in secret] (son).
From 24 to 30 January, from 15 to 21 June, and from 29 November to 5 December of each year, in the presence of the child's mother, [name keeps in secret] on weekdays from 18:30 to 20:30, and on the weekends from 10:00 to 12:30, and from 17:30 to 20:30, with a lunch break and with the child’s day-time sleep.
On Monday - from 18:30 to 20:30.
Mother and her son shall meet with father at 18:30 near "Pushkinsky" supermarket located at the address: city of Izhevsk, ul. Pushkinskaya, 286, and then in the presence of [name keeps in secret] they shall be spending time communicating, either in the playground of "Talisman" shopping center (ul. Kholmogorova, 11), in "Mama Pizza" restaurant (ul. Kholmogorova), or on the children's outdoor playgrounds, as well as in other children's leisure areas (upon mutual agreement of the parties).
At 20:30, father will be accompanying his son and mother to the "Pushkinsky" supermarket at the address: city of Izhevsk, ul. Pushkinskaya, 286, or mother and her son shall be getting to "Pushkinsky" supermarket on their own (upon mutual agreement of the pa... Read More »

International Divorce in Russia

DIVORCE JUDGEMENT
OF THE NAME OF RUSSIAN FEDERATION

Judge of Court district №210 of Saint Petersburg Baranova E.V. by the secretary Rasskazova A.U. with Plaintiff [the name keeps in secret] (Plaintiff, wife) have considered in public court hearing civil case of divorce by complaint of Plaintiff to Defendant [the name keeps in secret] (Defendant, husband),

ESTABLISHED:

The wife addressed judge with complaint to the husband to terminate the marriage, stated that she entered into the marriage with Defendant on June 26, 2013; parties do not have unemancipated children as a result of the marriage. The marriage has broken down irretrievably since April, 2016, there are no economic issues; parties live separate and apart from each other and further mutual life is impossible.

Plaintiff appeared in court, supported the claims, requested fulfill her claims and stated, that on February 27, 2016 Plaintiff and Defendant entered into Settlement Agreement, defining property right of spouses and determining termination of the marriage between parties in Russian Federation.

Defendant was aware of the intention of Plaintiff to terminate the marriage, because Plaintiff personally sent Verified Complaint to the Defendant to his address. Verified Complaint has been received by Defendant, which can be proved by a postal receipt.

Defendant failed to appear in court hearing, although, he was served properly with place and time of court hearing by postal correspondence (page 19). Court considers possible according to article 167 of the Civil Procedural Code of Russia to proceed the hearing in the absence of the Defendant.

Court considered the facts and explanations of Plaintiff, decided the following:

According to part 1 article 160 of the Family Codex of RF dissolution of the marriage between citizens of Russian Federation and foreign citizens on the territory of Russian Federation implement in accordance of legislation of Russian Federation.

By paragraph... Read More »