Tennessee case abstract on jurisdiction over actual property in divorce.
The spouse on this Knox County, Tennessee, case was from Cairo, Egypt, and the husband was from Palestine. They married in Egypt and moved to the US the place they’d 4 kids. The husband owned a enterprise as an electronics technician in Knoxville, and the spouse primarily took care of the house and youngsters. She additionally did some work as a translator.
In 2012, the husband believed the spouse was having an affair with one other man, and was sentenced to 17 years for assault and kidnapping of that man.
The spouse filed for divorce and requested custody of the minor kids. One contentious a part of the divorce was property situated within the Gaza Strip. The husband had allegedly transferred this property to his members of the family. The court docket ordered the husband to order these events to pay revenues from these properties on to the spouse.
In 2017, the spouse discovered that the husband’s brother was trying to promote the Gaza property below an influence of legal professional from the husband. She made a movement for emergency aid, and the trial court docket ordered the husband to execute a quitclaim deed, or the equal below Palestinian regulation, to switch the property to the spouse.
The spouse later amended her grievance so as to add the members of the family as defendants. These have been mailed to their tackle in Georgia, and he or she additionally tried service by means of the Tennessee Secretary of State. After they did not reply, she sought a default judgment for the $450,000 they’d allegedly obtained for the sale. This judgment was entered in 2018. After additional proceedings, a last judgment was entered, which included parenting provisions and an award of alimony. For the reason that husband was nonetheless in jail, the ultimate order specified that there could be no jail visits by the kids. The husband, his brother, and sister-in-law then appealed to the Tennessee Court docket of Appeals.
They raised varied points, the primary of which was whether or not the court docket had material jurisdiction over points involving the Gaza property. The appeals court docket zeroed in on the truth that the property in query was, certainly, a part of the marital property. The order in query didn’t purport to put aside the switch of the property. It merely ordered the events to pay to the spouse the quantity realized from the sale of that property. The court docket famous that the spouse was merely being paid for the asset, and that no person disputed that it was a marital asset.
The court docket then turned to the query of private jurisdiction over the non-spouse events. The appeals court docket famous that the difficulty boiled right down to whether or not they had enough contacts with Tennessee, and whether or not they have been personally served. Below Tennessee regulation, a tortious act or omission throughout the state is enough to help the required minimal contacts.
On this case, such an allegation was contained within the grievance. As well as, they’d filed a counterclaim and cross-claim towards the events, with out making an objection as to jurisdiction. Below these circumstances, the appeals court docket held that private jurisdiction was glad.
On the deserves of the case, the appeals court docket agreed with the decrease court docket that the spouse had established a conspiracy reason behind motion towards the family members. For instance, the brother testified that he acquired concerned within the property transaction solely as a result of he knew the divorce was pending. After fastidiously analyzing the proof, the Court docket of Appeals agreed with the decrease court docket’s ruling.
The Court docket of Appeals additionally analyzed the proof relating to the valuation of the marital property and concluded that the decrease court docket’s decision was acceptable.
After analyzing various different points within the case, the Court docket of Appeals, in an opinion penned by Choose J. Steven Stafford, affirmed the decrease court docket’s judgment in all respects.
No. E2019-01302-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 18, 2020).
See authentic opinion for precise language. Authorized citations omitted.
To study extra, see The Tennessee Divorce Process: How Divorces Work Start to Finish.
To study extra, see Property Division in Tennessee Divorce.