190 Conn. App. 296
Conn. App. Ct.2019Background
- Parties: Daelte St. Denis-Lima (plaintiff) and Thomas J. St. Denis (defendant); married 2004, two minor children.
- Plaintiff filed a Connecticut dissolution action (Dec. 30, 2015); defendant moved to dismiss (Feb. 16, 2016) on multiple grounds including lack of jurisdiction and comity.
- A Brazilian court entered a divorce decree on May 16, 2016, which was registered as final in Brazil July 6, 2016; the decree was later registered in Connecticut (Apr. 10, 2017).
- At a hearing (Apr. 21, 2017) plaintiff sought an evidentiary hearing and offered a Brazilian document suggesting proceedings were stayed; the court gave plaintiff three weeks to produce a non‑interlineated certified translation and the defendant time to respond.
- Trial court found the Brazilian decree final, parties had submitted to Brazilian jurisdiction, support orders and joint custody were issued, and remaining Brazilian proceedings were auxiliary; it granted defendant’s motion to dismiss (June 13, 2017).
- On appeal plaintiff argued the trial court erred by (1) denying an evidentiary hearing, (2) finding a final Brazilian judgment, and (3) recognizing that judgment under comity; the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an evidentiary hearing was required on existence of a final Brazilian divorce decree | St. Denis‑Lima: factual dispute existed about finality and she lacked time to respond; requested to present Brazilian counsel as witness | St. Denis: plaintiff had notice and failed to timely proffer evidence; court properly managed late disclosure | Court: No abuse of discretion—no genuinely disputed jurisdictional fact; plaintiff given time to submit evidence which did not show lack of finality |
| Whether trial court’s finding that Brazil issued a final dissolution was clearly erroneous | St. Denis‑Lima: record did not establish final decree | St. Denis: documents (including his affidavits) show final decree and registration | Court: Finding supported by record; not clearly erroneous |
| Whether Brazilian judgment should be recognized under comity because of domicile concerns | St. Denis‑Lima: defendant not a bona fide domiciliary of Brazil so CT should not recognize judgment | St. Denis: defendant has been domiciled in Brazil during relevant period; prior CT case found same | Court: Defendant’s domicile was Brazil; comity recognition appropriate |
| Whether recognizing Brazilian decree violates Connecticut public policy (e.g., differing domestic-relations relief) | St. Denis‑Lima: Brazilian law may allow dissolution without resolving alimony/property/support, conflicting with CT policy | St. Denis: support orders and parenting rights were issued in Brazil; full fairness and due process were provided | Court: No abuse of discretion—Brazilian proceedings afforded due process, issued support/custody orders, and recognition did not offend CT public policy |
Key Cases Cited
- Columbia Air Servs., Inc. v. Dept. of Transp., 293 Conn. 342 (2009) (where jurisdictional facts are disputed, an evidentiary hearing is required before deciding a motion to dismiss)
- Walshon v. Ballon Stoll Bader & Nadler, P.C., 121 Conn. App. 366 (2010) (plaintiff bears burden to request and present evidence to justify an evidentiary hearing on disputed facts)
- Zitkene v. Zitkus, 140 Conn. App. 856 (2013) (comity analysis: foreign judgment recognition requires opportunity for full and fair trial abroad and due process)
- Juma v. Aomo, 143 Conn. App. 51 (2013) (domicile principles for subject matter jurisdiction in matrimonial proceedings)