MARIA I. ALVAREZ VS. JOHN A. TORTORAÂ (FM-02-1561-12, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
A-3379-14T4
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | Jul 17, 2017Background
- Maria Alvarez (plaintiff) and John Tortora (defendant) claim they married in Havana, Cuba in April 2004 and have one child; both were previously divorced.
- Plaintiff produced a Cuban marriage certificate and a videotape of the Spanish-language wedding ceremony in which an officiant declared them "man and wife."
- Plaintiff admitted they did not live together continuously and had on several occasions represented herself as single on various official forms; she testified this was at defendant's insistence so she could obtain benefits.
- The Family Part held a pretrial hearing on the issue of marital validity; only plaintiff testified and introduced documentary evidence at that hearing.
- The trial court dismissed the divorce complaint, concluding (without supporting authority) that the marriage was void because the parties failed to obtain U.S. government permission (citing 31 C.F.R. § 515 provisions).
- The Appellate Division reversed the dismissal of the complaint, ruling the trial court erred as defendant presented no evidence the marriage was invalid under Cuban law; the case was remanded for a new judge to decide the divorce issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the parties were validly married | Alvarez urged the Cuban marriage certificate and wedding videotape prove a valid marriage; burden shifts to defendant to prove invalidity | Tortora argued failure to obtain U.S. regulatory permission to marry in Cuba (31 C.F.R.) voided the marriage | Court held plaintiff's evidence established a marriage; defendant produced no evidence (especially under Cuban law) to rebut validity, so marriage cannot be declared void on the cited federal-regulation theory |
| Whether failure to obtain U.S. government license under 31 C.F.R. voids a foreign marriage | Alvarez: federal regulatory violations, if any, do not invalidate a marriage valid under foreign law | Tortora: alleged violation of federal regs (e.g., 31 C.F.R. § 515.560) invalidates the marriage | Held that no authority shows failure to comply with those federal regulations voids a marriage valid under the law of the place where it was solemnized; at most it exposes persons to civil/criminal penalties, not nullity of marriage |
| Burden of proof on marriage validity and applicable law | Alvarez: admission of marriage certificate shifts burden to defendant to prove invalidity, which must be shown under Cuban law | Tortora: argued other defects (e.g., lack of apostille or other federal issues) | Held that once plaintiff introduced the marriage certificate, burden shifted to defendant; defendant produced no evidence re: Cuban law or authenticity challenges, and Cuba was not a Hague Apostille country at the time, so lack of apostille did not preclude admission |
| Whether prior court orders on discovery, expert fees, and counsel fees were enforceable now that the complaint was dismissed | Alvarez: trial court had earlier ordered discovery and monetary contributions from defendant and those orders should be enforced | Tortora: not addressed in detail at appellate level | Held appellate court declined to decide these enforcement issues on appeal; on remand plaintiff may apply to enforce the earlier orders |
Key Cases Cited
- N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. M.M., 189 N.J. 261 (2007) (standard for appellate deference to Family Part fact findings)
- Manalapan Realty, L.P. v. Twp. Comm. of Manalapan, 140 N.J. 366 (1995) (no special deference to trial court legal conclusions)
- Heinl v. Heinl, 287 N.J. Super. 337 (App. Div. 1996) (abuse of discretion standard described)
- Raspa v. Raspa, 207 N.J. Super. 371 (Ch. Div. 1985) (burden shifts to defendant to prove marriage invalid by clear and convincing evidence)
- Simmons v. Simmons, 35 N.J. Super. 575 (App. Div. 1955) (marriage certificate or public record may establish marriage)
- Sturm v. Sturm, 111 N.J. Eq. 579 (Ch. 1932) (validity of marriage determined by law of place where solemnized)
- Nieder v. Royal Indem. Ins. Co., 62 N.J. 229 (1973) (appellate courts generally decline to consider issues not raised below)
- Duddy v. Gov't Emps. Ins. Co., 421 N.J. Super. 214 (App. Div. 2011) (appellate court may decline to address certain matters that should be first decided by trial court)