Hi David,
Even though the New Jersey court does not have in rem jurisdiction to
itself effectuate the conveyance of the Florida property by way of
order/judgment, the New Jersey court does have personal jurisdiction over
the parties and can therefore make orders to them as to how they are to
dispose of the Florida property.
Rajeh A. Saadeh
The Law Office of Rajeh A. Saadeh, L.L.C.
50 Division Street, Suite 501
Somerville, N.J. 08876
p: 908.864.7884
f: 908.301.6202
[email protected]http://www.rajehsaadeh.comIMPORTANT CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
This message (including any/all attachments) is being sent by an attorney
and is intended exclusively for the individual or entity to which it is
addressed. This message (including any/all attachments) contains
information that is proprietary, privileged, confidential, and/or otherwise
legally protected from disclosure. If you are not the named addressee, you
are not authorized to read, print, retain, and/or disseminate this message
and/or any part of it (including any/all attachments). If you received this
message in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently
delete and destroy any/all copies of this message (including any/all
attachments).
DISCLAIMER REGARDING REPRESENTATION
This message (including any/all attachments) does not establish an
attorney-client relationship between you and me. An attorney-client
relationship between you and me can only be established by personal contact
and requires (i) my prior written consent to act as your attorney and (ii)
your and my execution of a written retainer agreement.
LEGAL ADVICE/SOLICITATION
This message (including any/all attachments) is for general informational
purposes only and does not constitute solicitation or legal advice.
Original Message------
Client received a vacation home in Florida during the marriage as compensation for employment. It's in his name only. He wants to retain it and wife wants it as well. There *may* be enough assets to offset its value, but each party wants the physical property.
In researching the issue of a New Jersey court entering a judgment that transfers title, it appears that there's a jurisdictional issue that (I'm hoping) will prevent New Jersey from distributing title to a property outside our borders.
I found an unpublished decision (actually, just an order on a summary application) wherein Judge Lihotz commented "Second, a New Jersey court may not exercise jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes regarding or order the disposition of real estate located outside the state's borders." In that case, the dispute was over transferring title to an apartment in Jerusalem (international), but the language appears to apply interstate as well as internationally. (Whole decision below).
Anyone know if there's a seminal case on this? Or an article / summary?
Thanks......
- Dave
David Perry Davis, Esq.
----------------------------------------------------
www.FamilyLawNJ.pro
----------------------------------------------------
112 West Franklin Avenue
Pennington, NJ 08534
Voice: 609-737-2222
Fax: 609-737-3222
ORDER
-----
THIS MATTER HAVING BEEN DULY PRESENTED TO THE COURT, IT IS, ON THIS 10th day of December, 2014, HEREBY ORDERED AS FOLLOWS:
MOTION BY APPELLANT MOTION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL ON ALL ISSUES INCLUDING THOSE WHICH MAY BE CONSIDERED INTERLOCUTORY IN THE AUGUST 29, 2014 ORDER GRANTED IN PART/ DENIED IN PART / MOTION FOR STAY PENDING APPEAL DENIED / MOTION TO FILE OVERLENGTH BRIEF / IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR STAY / PENDING APPEAL AND FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL GRANTED
SUPPLEMENTAL: Leave to appeal is granted in part solely to
clarify the limited issue of the scope of the Family Part's
jurisdiction to address the transfer of real property located in
Jerusalem, Israel.
The challenge attacks what is characterized as the Family
Part's equitable distribution and transfer of foreign realty.
However, the order appears from this record to have been entered
FILED, Clerk of the Appellate Division, Dec 11 2014, A-000521-14, AMENDED
Page 2 of 2
following binding arbitration determinations. The motion record
appears incomplete in this regard, therefore we provide the
parameters of the Family Part's jurisdiction and remand the
matter.
First, the court may confirm a final award rendered in
arbitration. See N.J.S.A. 2A:23B-22. These parties chose to be
bound by the arbitration process, thus constricting the court's
role thereafter. Jurisdiction is limited to confirming a final
arbitration award, once issued, enforcement of the final award
as permitted by statute, or addressing the limited challenges
available to such an award. If the arbitration award is not
final, the matter must be returned to arbitration for
finalization.
Second, a New Jersey court may not exercise jurisdiction to
adjudicate disputes regarding or order the disposition of real
estate located outside the state's borders. New Jersey Courts
lack subject matter jurisdiction to affect realty located in
another country, as "the laws of the place where such property
is situate[] exclusively govern . . . the rights of the parties,
the mode of transfer, and the solemnities which shall accompany
them." Allaire v. Allaire, 37 N.J.L. 312, 321-22 (Sup. Ct.
1875), aff'd 39 N.J.L. 113 (E. & A. 1876). Here, the action in
Israel was commenced prior to this matrimonial matter. The
Israeli court has subject matter jurisdiction to consider any
challenges to the transfer of the realty, as governed by Israeli
law.
The matter is remanded to the Family Part to clarify its
determination. We do not retain jurisdiction.
FOR THE COURT:
MARIE E. LIHOTZ, P.J.A.D.
FM-15-001487-14 OCEAN
ORDER ON MOTION WHEN CROSS-FILED
BJD
FILED, Clerk of the Appellate Division, Dec 11 2014, A-000521-14, AMENDED