SOAD G. IBRAHIM VS. ABDEL FATTAH MAHMOUD (FM-14-1280-16, MORRIS COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) ( 2018 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court."
Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the
parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-4400-16T2
SOAD G. IBRAHIM,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
ABDEL FATTAH MAHMOUD,
Defendant-Appellant.
____________________________
Submitted June 26, 2018 – Decided August 21, 2018
Before Judges Simonelli and Koblitz.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,
Chancery Division, Family Part, Morris County,
Docket No. FM-14-1280-16.
Celli, Schlossberg, De Meo & Giusti, PC,
attorneys for appellant (Katherine E. Giusti,
on the brief).
Respondent has not filed a brief.
PER CURIAM
Defendant Abdel Fattah Mahmoud appeals from the May 5, 2017
Family Part order, which denied without prejudice his motion to
terminate alimony. On appeal, Mahmoud contends, in part, that the
trial court lacked jurisdiction to award alimony to plaintiff Soad
G. Ibrahim. We affirm.
The parties were married in Egypt, and divorced in Egypt
pursuant to an Egyptian certificate of divorce recorded on November
16, 2002. Ibrahim was not awarded alimony in the divorce
proceeding. After the parties moved to New Jersey, Ibrahim filed
a motion for an order registering the Egyptian divorce here and
awarding her alimony. Mahmoud was served with, but did not oppose,
the motion. In an August 2, 2016 order, the trial court granted
the motion, registered the Egyptian divorce in New Jersey, and
awarded Ibrahim temporary alimony of $800 per month, effective May
10, 2016. The parties filed several motions thereafter regarding
the alimony award. The court entered several orders, which
terminated and then reinstated the alimony award.
On January 31, 2017, Mahmoud filed yet another motion to
terminate alimony, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction to award
alimony, Ibrahim was not entitled to alimony, and he was unable
to pay. In a May 5, 2017 order, the court denied the motion and
made findings of fact and conclusions of law in a comprehensive
written statement of reasons. This appeal followed.
As a threshold matter, Mahmoud's notice of appeal states he
is only appealing from the May 5, 2017 order. "[I]t is only the
judgments or orders or parts thereof designated in the notice of
2 A-4400-16T2
appeal which are subject to the appeal process and review."
Pressler & Verniero, Current N.J. Court Rules, cmt. 6.1 on R. 2:5-
1(f)(1) (2018); see also 1266 Apartment Corp. v. New Horizon Deli,
Inc., 368 N.J. Super. 456, 459 (App. Div. 2004). Thus, Mahmoud's
challenge to prior orders entered in this matter is not properly
before this court. See W.H. Indus., Inc. v. Fundicao Balancins,
Ltda, 397 N.J. Super. 455, 458 (App. Div. 2008). Accordingly, we
limit our review to the May 5, 2017 order.
Mahmoud does not contest the validity of the Egyptian divorce
or challenge the order registering the certificate of divorce in
New Jersey. Rather, he argues the court lacked jurisdiction to
award alimony because the parties were divorced in Egypt and he
was not subject to personal jurisdiction in New Jersey because
there was no evidence he resided or owned property here at the
time of the divorce. This argument lacks merit.
"Whether it is appropriate for a court to exert personal
jurisdiction is not examined from a standpoint of what disputes
the forum may have an interest in adjudicating, but is instead
guided by the fairness of the choice of forum from the defendant's
viewpoint." Tatham v. Tatham, 429 N.J. Super. 502, 509-10 (App.
Div. 2013). "That is, the court must look to a defendant's
connection to the forum and whether it is fair -- in the
constitutional sense -- for the defendant to be haled into the
3 A-4400-16T2
forum to litigate the dispute." Id. at 510 (citation omitted).
As we held:
In the matrimonial context, the test is the
same; the court must examine whether there is
"a sufficient connection between the defendant
and the forum State to make it fair to require
defense of the action in the forum," which
involves a consideration of whether a
defendant has had the requisite minimum
contacts with New Jersey, and whether the
exercise of jurisdiction comports with "fair
play and substantial justice[.]"
[Ibid. (citations omitted).]
"These principles are designed to ensure that a defendant is not
unfairly burdened with litigating in a distant or inconvenient
forum and that the forum does not exceed the rightful limits of
its sovereignty." Ibid. (citation omitted).
The record in this case confirms that Mahmoud lived in
Chester, New Jersey throughout this matter. Accordingly, the
court had in personam jurisdiction over him and authority to award
alimony to Ibrahim. See N.J.S.A. 2A:34-8 (providing that "[t]he
Superior Court shall have jurisdiction of an action for alimony
and maintenance when the defendant is subject to the personal
jurisdiction of the court, is a resident of this State, or has
tangible or intangible real or personal property within the
jurisdiction of the court").
Affirmed.
4 A-4400-16T2