## Facts

- T.T. (wife) and K.A. (husband) entered into a customary marriage in Ghana.
- Under the parties’ description of Ghanaian custom, a customary marriage could be ended through family-based acts (including the return of drinks from the wife’s family to the husband’s family).
- After the marriage, T.T. and K.A. immigrated to the United States.
- K.A. claimed the marriage had already been dissolved in Ghana by customary means.
- As permitted under Ghanaian procedure described to the court, T.T.’s father and K.A.’s uncle filed an ex parte application in a Ghanaian Circuit Court seeking confirmation that the customary dissolution had occurred.
- The Ghanaian court issued an order/certificate stating the customary marriage had been customarily dissolved, that Ghanaian courts recognized the dissolution, and that the parties were free to remarry.
- T.T. later filed a matrimonial-related proceeding in New York Supreme Court seeking economic relief connected to the marriage (including equitable distribution).
- K.A. cross-moved to dismiss, arguing that the Ghanaian customary divorce (and the Ghanaian court’s certification) ended the marriage and barred New York relief.
- On the motion record, the New York court could not determine key points, including whether either party resided in Ghana when the dissolution allegedly occurred, whether T.T. had notice of or consented to the customary divorce, whether the dissolution was valid under Ghanaian law, or whether the Ghanaian process addressed financial issues.

## Issues

1. Whether New York should extend comity to an ex parte Ghanaian Circuit Court certification confirming a customary dissolution of marriage, such that the New York action should be dismissed.
2. Whether the husband’s papers established, as a matter of law at the pleading stage, that the foreign dissolution satisfied minimum requirements of jurisdiction and fairness (including residence/domicile ties and notice/opportunity to be heard).
3. Whether the documentary evidence submitted on the dismissal motion conclusively refuted the wife’s claim to proceed in New York for matrimonial-related economic relief.

## Decision

- The court denied K.A.’s cross-motion to dismiss.
- The court held that the Ghanaian certification and related submissions did not conclusively establish that the marriage had been terminated in a manner New York must recognize on comity grounds.
- The court allowed the New York matter to continue because unresolved questions remained about residence/jurisdictional connection, notice and participation, and the claimed dissolution’s validity and scope (including whether it addressed economic rights).

## Legal Principles

- New York may recognize a foreign divorce or marital dissolution as a matter of comity, but recognition is discretionary and depends on proof that the foreign proceeding was valid where obtained and consistent with basic fairness.
- Comity generally requires a sufficient jurisdictional connection to the foreign forum (commonly shown through domicile or residence) and procedures providing notice and an opportunity to be heard; ex parte or family-procured proceedings raise due process concerns when the nonmoving spouse’s notice and consent are not shown.
- A movant seeking dismissal based on documentary evidence must show that the documents conclusively establish a complete defense; where documents do not resolve material factual questions about jurisdiction, notice, consent, and validity, dismissal is not warranted at the pleading stage.
- Even where a foreign dissolution is claimed to terminate marital status, New York may still address financial incidents of the relationship when the foreign process did not clearly determine those rights and when recognition would conflict with New York’s requirements of fairness in matrimonial adjudication.

## Conclusion

The New York Supreme Court refused to dismiss T.T.’s New York action based on K.A.’s reliance on a Ghanaian ex parte certification confirming a customary dissolution, because the motion record did not prove the necessary jurisdictional ties or procedural fairness (including notice, participation, and consent), did not establish the dissolution’s validity under Ghanaian law with finality for New York purposes, and did not show that the foreign process resolved the parties’ economic rights.


T.T. v. K.A., 2008 WL 2468525 (2008)