140 Conn. App. 856
Conn. App. Ct.2013Background
- Married in Lithuania in 1963; both domiciled in Lithuania, later moved to the United States; they separated and plaintiff returned to Lithuania.
- In 2004, plaintiff commenced dissolution in Lithuania; defendant requested representation by Lithuanian-licensed agent.
- Settlement negotiations produced a June 2, 2009 settlement; on June 11, 2009 Kaunas City District Court approved the agreement and dissolved the marriage.
- Under the agreement plaintiff received the greater share of marital assets (residence in Kaunas and a Palanga hotel) and owed defendant 135,000 LTL.
- Plaintiff appealed to Lithuanian appellate court in 2010; appellate court dismissed the appeal noting plaintiff could have discharged obligations and had sufficient assets.
- Plaintiff later filed a Connecticut dissolution action in December 2010; trial court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss on comity grounds, which the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Connecticut should recognize the Lithuanian dissolution under comity. | Zitikene argues the Lithuanian judgment is not entitled to comity due to alleged fraud/misconduct. | Zitus argues the Lithuanian judgment is valid and entitled to comity; plaintiff failed to prove lack of jurisdiction by clear evidence. | Comity properly applied; Lithuanian judgment recognized and action dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. |
| Whether plaintiff proved lack of jurisdiction to hear a foreign dissolution. | Plaintiff asserts Connecticut lacked jurisdiction to dissolve a marriage already dissolved abroad. | Defendant contends the Lithuanian court had jurisdiction; comity shields recognition. | Trial court did not abuse discretion; proper to grant comity and dismiss. |
| Effect of estoppel and past conduct on challenging a foreign divorce. | Plaintiff’s actions contradict her later Connecticut challenge to the Lithuanian judgment. | Equitable estoppel bars invalidating a foreign decree where benefits were retained. | Estoppel supported recognizing the Lithuanian judgment and dismissal of the action. |
| Burden of proof to attack a foreign judgment for fraud. | Plaintiff claims fraud voids recognition. | Burden on challenger; clear and convincing evidence required to prove fraud. | Plaintiff failed to prove fraud by clear and convincing evidence. |
| Whether the court properly declined to hold an evidentiary hearing on New York proceedings. | Plaintiff suggests New York divorce could affect Lithuania decree validity. | U.S. proceedings do not defeat foreign judgment without proper basis; hearing unnecessary. | Court did not err in not holding an evidentiary hearing on New York proceedings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hilton v. Guyot, 159 U.S. 113 (1895) (comity depends on reciprocal recognition and due process standards)
- Walzer v. Walzer, 173 Conn. 62 (1977) (comity is discretionary and flexible)
- Litvaitis v. Litvaitis, 162 Conn. 540 (1972) (public policy and lack of jurisdiction considerations in recognition of foreign divorce)
- Maltas v. Maltas, 298 Conn. 354 (2010) (burden on challenger to prove lack of jurisdiction)
- Bruneau v. Bruneau, 3 Conn. App. 453 (1985) (estoppel and equitable considerations in recognizing foreign decrees)
- Conboy v. State, 292 Conn. 642 (2009) (undisputed facts in affidavits may supplement complaint for jurisdictional issues)
- Smith v. Smith, 174 Conn. 434 (1978) (full faith and credit for foreign final judgments in dissolution context)