.webp)
The amount of rules, guidelines, principles, and regulations which apply in the area of family law is almost breathtaking. There is so much to know in the area of family law: court procedures, rules for submitting motions, rules for objecting to motions, filing deadlines, and so forth. Given all that is involved, we shouldn’t be surprised to know how important it can be to hire a skilled attorney to assist with family law issues. The case of Taiwo v. Taiwo (2023) is a recent divorce case which dealt with the concept of “comity” in family law, something which we haven’t discussed previously here on our blog.
Facts of the Case
The couple in this case were married in Nigeria and then relocated to Maryland after their marriage (which took place in 2003). The husband held dual citizenship (USA and Nigeria), and he filed for divorce initially in Nigeria in 2020. The couple had already separated by that time (2019), and the wife filed a second divorce petition in Maryland in 2021. The husband argued that the principle of “comity” should apply, which means that the wife’s secondary petition should be precluded because the husband filed for divorce first in Nigeria. The wife argued that this principle wouldn’t apply in this case.
The Principle of Comity
Comity refers to the general concept of giving respect or deference to court judgments and laws in other jurisdictions. Comity often takes the form of states, such as Maryland, giving deference to judgments or laws of other states. As an example, when a state recognizes an out-of-state marriage as valid, even when that marriage wouldn’t have been possible due to that state’s own laws, this would be considered a form of comity. Similarly, when Maryland recognizes laws or court procedures from foreign countries, this is also a form of comity. The husband claimed that the concept of comity applied here, and that consequently the wife’s divorce petition should be barred.
Outcome of the Case
The husband had several problems with his argument. For one, simply because a litigant begins a motion or action in a foreign jurisdiction doesn’t automatically preclude another litigant from raising the same action in another jurisdiction. The husband didn’t have a judgment or order, but merely started a petition in Nigeria prior to the wife starting her petition in Maryland. Next, the husband’s Nigerian petition was actually dismissed by the Nigerian court because the court determined that he lacked proper jurisdiction (i.e. he wasn’t properly “domiciled” in Nigeria). Finally, the husband failed to give the wife adequate notice regarding the divorce petition launched in Nigeria. Because the wife wasn’t even given proper notice of the foreign petition, this further weakened the husband’s case that the principle of comity should apply. Perhaps, if the Nigeria petition had led to an actual divorce decree, and everything had been done properly, the husband’s argument may have succeeded. But, given the facts at hand, the husband ultimately failed to succeed using the comity argument.
Contact the Murphy Law Firm for Additional Information
If you’d like to know more, contact one of the family law attorneys at the Murphy Law Firm today by calling 240-219-5243.
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
