Articles and publications

Parallel Divorce

Q.: At the moment I am trying to divorce my husband. The divorce is taking place in Moscow. Since he kept delaying the proceedings, they have lasted for six months already. The district court passed a judgment in my favor, however my husband appealed against it, and the case will be heard in a court of appeal in mid-late May.

A.: If no judgment is passed in the case, the best thing you can do is to wait for the results of appeal to become known.


Q.: The main dispute concerns the place of the child`s residence.
A.: Has this issue been heard in a Russian court? If yes, could you please send me a copy of the court judgment in this case?


Q.: My husband demands that I return my daughter to Russia from the USA, and has also threatened to take her away.

A.: Where – in a Russian or American court? If in a Russian court, what judgment has been passed in the case?

If a Russian court passed a judgment in this case, to hope for it to be accepted and enforced in America would be too much optimistic. I suppose if you live in America on legal grounds, are a good mother, provide your daughter with everything necessary, and have no moral and material support on part of your spouse, it is very unlikely that the child will stay with the father. In any case this issue should be considered by an American judge. However, you certainly should have control over this issue.


Q.: I was forced to apply in the USA with a request for divorce (this was prior to the judgment passed in Russia) with the purpose to obtain protection from my husband`s offences.

A.: I can say the following on the subject of parallel application to a different court with a lawsuit between the same parties, on the same issue and on the same grounds. If a court establishes that there is an analogous case in proceedings of a different court, it should leave the case that was started later without consideration. Leaving without consideration means that if circumstances causing the action ... Read More »

Bliss vs. Bliss

Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of any formal errors so that corrections may be made before the bound volumes go to press.

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Nos. 97-FM-701 & 97-FM-1019

Daniel I. Bliss,

Appellant,

vs.

Elena T. Bliss,

Appellee.

Appeals from the Superior Court of the District of Columbia

(Hon. Zinora Mitchell-Rankin, Trial Judge)

(Argued November 24, 1998 - Decided July 22, 1999)

Alan B. Soschin for appellant.

Mary S. Pence, with whom Pamela B. Forbes and Garrett L. Lee were on the brief, for appellee.

Before Farrell and Ruiz, Associate Judges, and Retchin,* Associate Judge of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia.

Ruiz, Associate Judge: Daniel Bliss appeals from a judgment enforcing a Russian custody order, awarding sole custody of the parties' son, Nikita, to the mother, Elena Bliss. Appellant argues that the trial court erred in its determination that he had been afforded procedural due process in the Russian court. In addition, appellant contests the trial court's subsequent order awarding attorney's fees to Ms. Bliss under D.C. Code §16-4515(d) (1997), asserting that he could not have violated the Russian custody order until the trial court had determined that the Russian order was valid. We affirm.

I.

Elena Trush Bliss, a citizen of Russia, married Daniel Bliss, a United States citizen, in February 1995. The couple resided in Moscow where Mr. Bliss worked. Elena Bliss gave birth to a son, Nikita, later in 1995 during a four-month stay with Mr. Bliss's mother in the District of Columbia. Shortly after the couple's return to Russia, they began to have marital difficulties. During one argument, Mr. Bliss allegedly struck his wife. Thereafter, however, things seemed to improve until, without warning, on October 5, 1996, Mr. Bliss brought Nikita back to the Unit... Read More »

SAINT PETERSBURG CITY COURT

COURT RULING

Judge: ХХХХХХХХХХХХХХ

Judicial Division for Civil Case of Saint Petersburg City Court in the composition:

Chairperson – ХХХХХХХХХХХХХ, Judges: XXXXXXXXXXXX, XXXXXXXXXXXXX

Having considered in court session of February XX, 20XX the private complaint about Ruling of XXXXXXXXXXXXXX District court of Saint Petersburg dated December 25, 2008 as regards dismissal of application of Mr. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX against XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX for dissolution of marriage, recovery of alimony, and division of property jointly acquired in wedlock.

Having heard the report of judge Ms. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, explanations of attorney Ms. XXXXXXXXXXXXXX in favor of interests of XXXXXXXXXXXX, the representative of Ms. XXXXXXXXXXXX – XXXXXXXXXXXX acting by virtue of power of attorney dated October XX, 20XX.

Judicial Division for Civil Case of Saint-Petersburg City Court

HAS ESTABLISHED

Mr. XXXXXXXXXXXXXX applied to the court with the suit against Ms. XXXXXXXXXXX claiming dissolution of marriage, recovery of child support, division of property jointly acquired in wedlock.

The Ruling of XXXXXXXXXXXXX District court of Saint-Petersburg dated December XX, 20XX dismissed the suit of XXXXXXXXXXXXX.

In his private complaint XXXXXXXXXXXX asks to reverse the ruling, stating that the ruling has been determined unlawfully with violation of procedural law provisions.

Having examined the case papers, discussed the arguments of private complaint the Judicial Division believes that the ruling of the judge is subject to reversal.

When dismissing the suit the court was referring to provisions of cl. 1 o part 1 of Art. 134 of RF CPC and Art. 220 of RF CPC, specifying that the application is not subject to consideration and resolving in the civil procedure, since it was made with violation of jurisdiction rules, and must be considered in another proceeding.

Art. 134 of RF CPC regulates the procedure for judge’s ref... Read More »

Equitable Distribution

JUDGEMENT
IN THE NAME OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION

Saint Petersburg June XX, 20XX

Magistrate of Court division # XXX, Saint Petersburg, XXXXXXXXXXX,
In presence of Secretary XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX,

Upon having considered in open hearing in the premises of the Court division located at: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, Saint Petersburg, a civil matter


In the action of XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX against XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX for division of common property, by transferring to XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX apartment XXX in building number XXX on XXXXXXXXXXXXXX Prospect in Saint Petersburg and by transferring to XXXXXXXXXXXXXX apartment XXX in building number XXX on XXXXXXXXXX Prospect in Saint Petersburg, and for collection from XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX in favor of XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX of 1/2 cost of apartment # XXX in building number XXXXXXXXX on XXXXXXXXXXX Lane, Saint Petersburg, and legal expenses,

Established as follows:

The applicant, XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX applied to Court division # XXX, Saint Petersburg, with action against XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, for division of the spouses` common property where she asked the court to divide apartment XXX in building number XXX on XXXXXXXXXX Prospect in Saint Petersburg, by transferring XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX apartment # XXX in building number XXX on XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Prospect in Saint Petersburg and by transferring XXXXXXXXXXX apartment XXX in building number XXX on XXXXXXXXXXXX Prospect in Saint Petersburg, by acknowledging the right of ownership to apartment XXX in building number XXX on XXXXXXXXXX prospect, Saint Petersburg, by XXXXXXXXXXXXX who lost his right of ownership to apartment XXX in building XXX on XXXXXXXXXXXX Prospect, Saint Petersburg, and motivated her claim by the fact that on July XX, 20XX, XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, citizen of the Netherlands, and XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (maiden name – XXXXXXXXXXX), citizen of Russia, had their marriage registered in Helsinki Magistracy, Finland.

On May XX, 20XX, the... Read More »

The minor daughter of Garry Kasparov and her mother were refused to exit Russia

Question:
I’ve read this article at http://www.fontanka.ru/2007/12/12/086/. I’m shocked! I wouldn’t imagine that it were possible in a democratic country. Can you comment it?
“The minor daughter of Garry Kasparov and her mother were refused to exit Russia due to reason of visa unavailability. The correspondent of Journalistic Investigations Agency (JIA) was informed about it at PR department of the RF FSB Frontier Administration in Leningrad region. Recall that Darya Tarasova, a spouse of Garry Kasparov, one of leaders of the Other Russia coalition, and their little daughter could not flight to Helsinki from the international airport of Pulkovo-2 in Saint Petersburg. As JIA correspondent was told in the Other Russia press service officers of Frontier Service had retained them under pretence of documents verification for “questions clearing up”. The plane took off without Kasparov’s wife and daughter. As JIA correspondent was informed in the RF FSB Frontier Administration in Leningrad region in compliance with the Law about entrance and exit of foreign citizens foreigners can exit Russia with identification document (passport) or Russian visa issued by a competent authority. The minor daughter of Garry Kasparov being a citizen of the USA arrived to the territory of Russia on the basis of writing in to the regular Russian traveling passport of her mother (at the same time the girl has the passport of her own – the passport of the USA citizen). During period of Darya Tarasova staying at her native country her passport had expired and she received a new one without writing her daughter in to the new passport. That is why the girl had to exit Russia on the basis of exit visa, which she hadn’t had. Garry Kasparov’s spouse was offered to execute the document”.

Answer:
The answer to this question is out of politics; it completely lies in the law field. Entry and exit procedure to/from the Russian Federation is established by the RF ... Read More »