Articles and publications

The jurisdiction

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------X
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX,
Plaintiff, INDEX NO. XXXXXXXX

-against- AFFIDAVIT IN
SUPPORT
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX,
Defendant.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------X


STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK ss:

I, KARINA KRASNOVA, being duly sworn, depose and say:
1. I am an attorney licensed to practice law in the Russian Federation. My registration number is 78/857. My specialty is matrimonial and family law in the Russian Federation. I am also registered as a legal consultant in the United States and I am often called to testify in the United States courts as an expert on Russian laws.
2. I am writing this Affidavit in support of this motion to have the parties’ divorce from Russia recognized and registered in the United States. My clients consist of individuals of all nations who need representation in Russia on matrimonial issues.
3. As plaintiff’s attorney in Russia, I am fully familiar with the facts and circumstances of the parties’ case and their divorce file.
4. The parties are Russian citizens. They were married on XXXXXXXXXXX, in Saint-Petersburg, Russia, and they have a minor child who currently resides in St. Petersburg, XXXXXXXXX.
5. Plaintiff, XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, retained my services in 2009 to represent him in connection with a divorce. It is not uncommon for residents of the United States to obtain a divorce in their home country, provided they meet jurisdictional requirements. Generally, in such cases the divorce decree does not include any incidental relief (i.e., equitable distribution, maintenance), only effects a change in marital status.
6. Here, the parties met jurisdictional requirements for obtaining a divorce in St. Petersburg, Russia. To obtain a divorce in Russia, under the... Read More »

Judge Awards Durational Maintenance and Forwards Decision to IRS

Particularly in light of the recent push toward Alternative Dispute Resolution, Justice Bruno's recent decision is a reminder that the court's obligation to report tax evasion to the authorites is but one more reason for parties to consider alternatives to litigation. Read More »

DEBT CEILING NEGOTIATIONS: CONGRESS AT WAR - BATTLE OF THE BULGE

Scientists have recently confirmed that dark energy is driving the universe apart at accelerating speeds. Perhaps dark energy is also at work in congress and our political differences are an astrophysical phenomenon.
Whether physical or psychiatric, the debt ceiling impasse is ongoing. At Blair House Vice President Joe Biden is trying to bring together Republicans and Democrats themselves internally divided, to forge a compromise bill that would avoid a technical default by the US Government on outstanding sovereign debt. The combatants, apart from ideological differences about the appropriate role and size of government, have much at stake with a Presidential election looming in 2012 and many campaign promises having been made to either retain or reform certain entitlement programs. The Treasury since July has been shuffling its spending to avoid exceeding the $1.43 Trillion existing debt ceiling. On August 2, the Treasury states it will run out of maneuvering room and some interest payments or other mandatory entitlement checks will be postponed. Everyone will eventually be paid but amidst a catatonic sovereign debt environment, debt rating agencies have warned of a possible reduction from the current top rating of U.S. debt. Psychologically, breaking that barrier could be chaotic to world financial markets and increase the cost of U.S. borrowing putting more pressure on already difficult budgetary problems.
I suspect the participants in these tense talks may feel under siege as was the light brigade in Tennyson’s historic poem: “Cannon to the right of them, Cannon to the left of them, Cannon in front of them…Boldly they rode and well… into the mouth of hell.” No one is going to be completely happy with what emerges from these debt ceiling discussions and political careers may rise of fall with the outcome. Whether an agreement can be reached will depend on how much each side is willing to alienate its political base. Such political calculus... Read More »

Full faith and credit doctrine.

The Full Faith and Credit Clause is the familiar name used to refer to Article IV, Section 1 of the United States Constitution, which addresses the duties that states within the United States have to respect the records and judicial proceedings of every other court.
The contradictions between the decisions of two courts have created many problems whereas Full Faith and Credit shall be given. The evidence and the facts established by the Family Court shall not be proved once again. The facts established by the Family Court during the trial are binding for any other court.

In 1804, Congress enacted statute requiring that full faith and credit be given to the records and judicial proceedings of the territories of the United States.

The Supreme Court held in Mills v. Duryee (1813) and Hampton v. McConnell (1818) that a judgment rendered in one court has conclusive effect in other court. The court in the original state must have had jurisdiction, and the requirements of due process must have been satisfied. Also, the original judgment must have been on the merits and it must have been final.

The Supreme Court held in Stoll v. Gottlieb (1938) and St. John v. Wisconsin Employment Relations Board (1951) that federal courts must grant full faith and credit to state court judgments, and vice versa.... Read More »

Law of the case doctrine.

From Wike v. Vertrue, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90366 (M.D. Tenn. Aug. 30, 2010):

"As most commonly defined, [the doctrine of the law of the case] posits that when a court decides upon a rule of law, that decision should continue to govern the same issues in subsequent stages in the same case.'" Christianson v. Colt Indus. Operating Corp., 486 U.S. 800, 815-16, 108 S. Ct. 2166, 100 L. Ed. 2d 811 (1988) [brackets in original] (quoting Arizona v. California, 460 U.S. 605, 618, 103 S. Ct. 1382, 75 L. Ed. 2d 318 (1983)). Further, "under the doctrine of law of the case, findings made at one point of the litigation become the law of the case for subsequent stages of that same litigation." United States v. Moored, 38 F.3d 1419, 1421 (6th Cir. 1994). "The doctrine also bars challenges to a decision made at a previous stage of the litigation which could have been challenged in a prior appeal, but were not." Rouse v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 300 F.3d 711, 715 (6th Cir. 2002).... Read More »