Fox Rothschild LLP

Bright-eyed law students around the country take a course called Civil Procedure during their first year of law school. By the time they graduate three years later, the will certainly remember the buzz-words “subject matter jurisdiction”, “personal jurisdiction” and “forum non conveniens”, but most all will have forgotten the concepts behind these foundational principles. Even as lawyers, since jurisdiction is not an issue that often arises (as most of matrimonial litigants do not contest that New Jersey is the appropriate forum in which to litigate their divorce), we may forget the specifics of these doctrines as well.  In the recent published (precedential) Appellate Division decision of Tatham v. Tatham, the Court gave us a primer in New Jersey civil procedure. 
The parties in Tatham are Australian citizens. Because of the Husband’s employment in international financial investment, the parties have lived all over the world during their marriage. The parties moved to New Jersey in 2007 and in the fall of 2008, the Husband moved to Singapore, where he has since resided. Wife, and the parties’ two teenaged daughters, have remained in New Jersey since 2007. Since Husband moved to Singapore in 2008, Husband regularly returned to New Jersey to visit his children until June of 2011, when the parties decided to get divorced. 
In the summer of 2011, Wife commenced a divorce action. Husband moved to dismiss Wife’s Complaint asserting was not the proper jurisdiction to litigate the matter. The trial court agreed and dismissed Wife’s action based on the 1) lack of subject matter jurisdiction over Husband; 2) the fact that it could not “fairly” exert personal jurisdiction over Husband; 3) that New Jersey was not a convenient forum; and 4) that service of the Complaint for Divorce was not properly effected. 

Continue Reading Tatham v. Tatham: A Lesson in Civil Procedure?

 In the unpublished (non-precedential) trial court case of Rendon v. Ale, the Court determined that a biological father, who while married to another woman, donated sperm in order for another woman to be artificially inseminated was not insulated under the protections of the Artificial Insemination Statute.

In Rendon, the parties, who were initially both married to other people, started a romantic relationship. After many years of their on again, off again affair, and notwithstanding that Defendant was still married, Defendant agreed to donate his sperm to Plaintiff for the purposes of artificial insemination.  Five days after his first sperm sample was taken, Plaintiff executed and had notarized a “Resignation Letter of Obligations” which stated:

To whom it may concern: This letter confirms the renunciation of all

kinds of paternal obligations that can have Carlos Ale identified with

Social Security # ***-**-3381 with my son or daughter since his (her)

procreation to his (her) adulthood. This includes maintenance, healthcare,

child support or any other responsibility as a father.

Very truly yours, /s Alba Rendon.

Continue Reading Sperm Donation: The Gift that Keeps on Giving?