U.S divorce for a marriage that happened in New Zealand Valid?

[Echony]

I reside in Texas, I've always been a U.S citizen, I ended up leaving for a year overseas in New Zealand where I got married to New Zealand citizen.

The marriage turned sour before we started to try to bring her over to the America. We been separated for 3 years now and she never gets around to filing for a divorce, but that's how she always was.

So I want to file for a divorce here in the U.S now that I have the money to do it on my own. I would be filing alone, so i know i need to serve her papers in the end.

My main question is will the divorce be valid in New Zealand? I can't seem to find an answer for this, I don't know where to look at this in terms of laws. I don't really have the money to pay a legal adviser. I would prefer to be free in both countries, but i hear there are times when a divorce may be valid in one country and not in another.

 

[Silverplum]

I reside in Texas, I've always been a U.S citizen, I ended up leaving for a year overseas in New Zealand where I got married to New Zealand citizen.

The marriage turned sour before we started to try to bring her over to the America. We been separated for 3 years now and she never gets around to filing for a divorce, but that's how she always was.

So I want to file for a divorce here in the U.S now that I have the money to do it on my own. I would be filing alone, so i know i need to serve her papers in the end.

My main question is will the divorce be valid in New Zealand? I can't seem to find an answer for this, I don't know where to look at this in terms of laws. I don't really have the money to pay a legal adviser. I would prefer to be free in both countries, but i hear there are times when a divorce may be valid in one country and not in another.

I think it would be, because NZ is a member/signator of the Hague Convention.

http://blog.veritaslegalgroup.com/2011/12/12/divorce-of-foreign-spouses-houston-divorce-lawyers/

http://www.hcch.net/index_en.php?act=states.details&sid=57

http://riga.usembassy.gov/hague_list.html


(**I have no personal connection to any links I provide for helpful information.**)

 

[Ohiogal]

The court does not have personal jurisdiction over her without her consent. That could be a problem.

 

[single317dad]

I reside in Texas, I've always been a U.S citizen, I ended up leaving for a year overseas in New Zealand where I got married to New Zealand citizen.

The marriage turned sour before we started to try to bring her over to the America. We been separated for 3 years now and she never gets around to filing for a divorce, but that's how she always was.

So I want to file for a divorce here in the U.S now that I have the money to do it on my own. I would be filing alone, so i know i need to serve her papers in the end.

My main question is will the divorce be valid in New Zealand? I can't seem to find an answer for this, I don't know where to look at this in terms of laws. I don't really have the money to pay a legal adviser. I would prefer to be free in both countries, but i hear there are times when a divorce may be valid in one country and not in another.

Advice from the US State Department:

http://travel.state.gov/law/family_issues/divorce/divorce_592.html

The truth is, whether or not the divorce is valid in NZ isn't really your problem; it's hers. YOUR problem is whether or not you can obtain a judgment of divorce, and if it will stand up HERE if it's ever challenged.

ETA: As OG stated, you may run into problems, from proving service to establishing jurisdiction. Usually, if the other party never argues, the divorce will likely go through and nothing more will come of it. It's possible that she could come to the states at some point and ask that the judgment be set aside and the case reheard.

 

[Silverplum]

I was answering whether or not a divorce would be valid.

HOW to DO it is another question:
"Even if the Texas court does not have jurisdiction over the non-resident spouse, the parties may still be divorced. Texas law provides for “status adjustment” whereby the court can grant a divorce without addressing child custody or division of property. Status adjustment leaves many important issues unresolved, but it does allow parties to remarry without fear of violating bigamy laws." http://www.dallastxdivorce.com/2012/08/articles/dallas-county-divorce/i-want-a-divorce-but-my-spouse-doesnt-live-here/


NZ Info:
http://www.dia.govt.nz/diawebsite.nsf/wpg_URL/Services-Births-Deaths-and-Marriages-Marriages-Frequently-Asked-Questions#twentytwo

http://www.justice.govt.nz/courts/family-court/

http://www.justice.govt.nz/courts/family-court/practice-and-procedure/self-litigants

 

[latigo]

The court does not have personal jurisdiction over her without her consent. That could be a problem.

Well, I agree that unless the couple’s last marital residence was in the state of Texas, that state would not have personal jurisdiction over the non-resident spouse. Meaning such a court could not effectively issue orders obligating the respondent, such as spousal support or a division of marital property not situated within Texas.

HOWEVER, provided either party is domiciled in Texas such a court would have in rem jurisdiction entitling it to void the marriage. (See: Texas Family Code Section 6.307 JURISDICTION TO DECLARE MARRIAGE VOID)

Now whether or not the dissolution would be recognized in New Zealand is a separate question that I’m not qualified to answer. But if the OP never intends to return to New Zealand, what would be the practical consequences? None that occur to me.

 

[Zigner]

Well, I agree that unless the couple’s last marital residence was in the state of Texas, that state would not have personal jurisdiction over the non-resident spouse. Meaning such a court could not effectively issue orders obligating the respondent, such as spousal support or a division of marital property not situated within Texas.

HOWEVER, provided either party is domiciled in Texas such a court would have in rem jurisdiction entitling it to void the marriage. (See: Texas Family Code Section 6.307 JURISDICTION TO DECLARE MARRIAGE VOID)

Now whether or not the dissolution would be recognized in New Zealand is a separate question that I’m not qualified to answer. But if the OP never intends to return to New Zealand, what would be the practical consequences? None that occur to me.

When did voiding the marriage come in to play?

 

[Ohiogal]

When did voiding the marriage come in to play?

A divorce voids the marriage.

 

[Zigner]

A divorce voids the marriage.

No, divorce dissolves the marriage.

 

[Zigner]

This is the relevant section, not 6.307:

Sec. 6.305. ACQUIRING JURISDICTION OVER NONRESIDENT RESPONDENT. (a) If the petitioner in a suit for dissolution of a marriage is a resident or a domiciliary of this state at the time the suit for dissolution is filed, the court may exercise personal jurisdiction over the respondent or over the respondent's personal representative although the respondent is not a resident of this state if:
(1) this state is the last marital residence of the petitioner and the respondent and the suit is filed before the second anniversary of the date on which marital residence ended; or
(2) there is any basis consistent with the constitutions of this state and the United States for the exercise of the personal jurisdiction.
(b) A court acquiring jurisdiction under this section also acquires jurisdiction over the respondent in a suit affecting the parent-child relationship.

Added by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 7, Sec. 1, eff. April 17, 1997.


Taken from http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/FA/htm/FA.6.htm

 

[Zigner]

Also germane:

Sec. 6.308. EXERCISING PARTIAL JURISDICTION. (a) A court in which a suit for dissolution of a marriage is filed may exercise its jurisdiction over those portions of the suit for which it has authority.
(b) The court's authority to resolve the issues in controversy between the parties may be restricted because the court lacks:
(1) the required personal jurisdiction over a nonresident party in a suit for dissolution of the marriage;
(2) the required jurisdiction under Chapter 152; or
(3) the required jurisdiction under Chapter 159.

 

[Silverplum]

I don't think it's a good idea for OP to self-represent in this matter. It's a lot of study and work to self-rep in the US: I don't even want to imagine learning how to mess with it internationally.

 

[latigo]

Also germane:

Sec. 6.308. EXERCISING PARTIAL JURISDICTION. (a) A court in which a suit for dissolution of a marriage is filed may exercise its jurisdiction over those portions of the suit for which it has authority.
(b) The court's authority to resolve the issues in controversy between the parties may be restricted because the court lacks:
(1) the required personal jurisdiction over a nonresident party in a suit for dissolution of the marriage;
(2) the required jurisdiction under Chapter 152; or
(3) the required jurisdiction under Chapter 159.

Not to be taken "personal", but the “thing” is, or seems to be that:

“A divorce may be filed and maintained in Texas if either party to suit has been a resident of the state for 6 months and the county of suit for 90 days. (Texas Family Code §6.301). If one spouse meets this requirement, then the Court has jurisdiction over the case. When the court has jurisdiction of at least one party to the divorce, it maintains jurisdiction to dissolve the marital relationship because it is an in rem proceeding (Fox v. Fox, 559 S.W.2d 407, 410 (Tex. App.—Austin, 1977, no pet.). “In rem” is just a technical term used to identify legal proceedings against a thing as opposed to a person. In this situation, the “thing” is the status of the marriage relationship.

“A trial court has jurisdiction over the marital status of its citizens that is not defeated by its lack of personal jurisdiction over their spouses.” (Hoffman v. Hoffman, 821 S.W.2d 3, 5 (Tex. App.—Ft. Worth, 1992, no pet.).” (Emphasis mine, cases not read)

____________________

At least this is so according to Texas family law attorney Curtis W. Harrison II in addressing the question: “Can You File For Divorce in Texas if Your Spouse Does Not Live in the State?

Also, true here and my wager is that it is also so in the other 48.

 

[Zigner]

Not to be taken "personal", but the “thing” is, or seems to be that:

“A divorce may be filed and maintained in Texas if either party to suit has been a resident of the state for 6 months and the county of suit for 90 days. (Texas Family Code §6.301). If one spouse meets this requirement, then the Court has jurisdiction over the case. When the court has jurisdiction of at least one party to the divorce, it maintains jurisdiction to dissolve the marital relationship because it is an in rem proceeding (Fox v. Fox, 559 S.W.2d 407, 410 (Tex. App.—Austin, 1977, no pet.). “In rem” is just a technical term used to identify legal proceedings against a thing as opposed to a person. In this situation, the “thing” is the status of the marriage relationship.

“A trial court has jurisdiction over the marital status of its citizens that is not defeated by its lack of personal jurisdiction over their spouses.” (Hoffman v. Hoffman, 821 S.W.2d 3, 5 (Tex. App.—Ft. Worth, 1992, no pet.).” (Emphasis mine, cases not read)

____________________

At least this is so according to Texas family law attorney Curtis W. Harrison II in addressing the question: “Can You File For Divorce in Texas if Your Spouse Does Not Live in the State?

Also, true here and my wager is that it is also so in the other 48.

The statute cited above says otherwise (6.305). Your information would apply if the other party was a resident of the state at any time up to 24 months prior to the date that the parties separate. To be clear, I'm talking about personal jurisdiction over the parties.