(Sanitized) CONSEQUENCES AND PROBLEMS CONFRONTING AGENCY EMPLOYEES

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP85-00375R000200130001-6
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: S
• Document Page Count: 28
• Document Creation Date: December 12, 2016
• Document Release Date: October 18, 2001
• Sequence Number: 1
• Publication Date: November 26, 1969
• Content Type: MF

SUBJECT: Foreign Divorce Decrees: Consequences and
Problems Confronting Agency Employees
CCC 69-2213
26 November 1969
MEMORANDUM FOR: Director of Personnel
1. Your comments are solicited with regard to the questions,
suggested answers and proposals set forth herein.
2. A divorce decree issued by a foreign country is not entitled
to full faith and credit under the U. S. Constitution. Its validity must
stand on the international principle of comity between friendly nations.
Comity looks to the moral necessity to do justice, so that justice may
be done in return. Under this principle, the courts of a U. S. forum
will recognize the foreign.decree if satisfied that the foreign court had
jurisdiction over the parties or the subject matter, and provided further
that recognizing the decree, or the procuring of the same, does not
violate the forum's public policy. The "public policy" of a state is to
be found in the law of the state, whether found in its constitution, statutes
or judicial decisions.
3. The Mexican divorce, because it has been the subject of con-
siderable subsequent litigation, has made most lawyers cognizant of
the problems raised by foreign divorce decrees. For this reason and
because of past and current problems before this office involving Mexican
divorces, the following commentary treats with the consequences of such
divorces with specific reference to their applicability to employees of
this Agency.
4. The term "Mexican divorce, " is generally understood to include
a decree procured by any one of the following three methods:
OGC Has Reviewed
02/01108,;.CIA-RDP_$ - 5RG O ODl,:3OQ.L1z-Q-.
SECRET
Approved For Release 2002/01/0 T05-003758080200.1 Jodi-6
 AppFev" o
Rel. sa2/,01.f0&ZIA-. DP4 75R 1-6
SECRET
The first method hereinafter termed the " i- a~z~tty
Divorce" is one in which the plaintiff personally appears in Mexico
and where the defendant appears either in person in Mexico or
through an attorney, duly appointed by the defendant to appear in
the action for him or her.
Next is the so-called "Mail Order Divorce" in which
either one or both parties appear in action, ut neither party
is physically present in Mexico at any time. The parties appear
through attorneys, whom they appoint by mail, and in due course
receive a decree from Mexico, also by mail.
The'third method is the so-called "One-Party Divorce"
where the plaintiff appears personally personally in Mexico, itutes an action
for divorce and where the defendant does not appear in person or
through an attorney, but is given notice of the proceeding by personal
service or by publication in the United States.
5. It can be stated unequivocally that the "mail order divorce"
1 1. 'I
is not recognized by any American jurisdiction. The ases+hold
ing +o
such a divorce void from the beginning, not just voidable, are legion.
See Mexican Divorce - A Survey, 33 Fordham L. Rev. 449 (1965);
27B C.J.S. Divorce sec. 352. The overwhelming majority of states
having ruled on the validity of the 'one-party divorce" have held the
decrees to be invalid. The rare exceptions are those cases where
there are extenuating circumstances--usually where the subsequent
"marriage" has been in existence and uncontested for many years and
there are children. Even these circumstances have not proved sufficient
to prevent some courts from invalidating the Mexican decree. Lastly,
even the "bi-party divorce" has been invalidated by some states having
ruled on them. n some.cases one of the parties to the divorce has not
been estopped from subsequently contesting the decree. New York
appears to be the most notable exception, generally recognizing the
validity of the "bi-party"' Mexican divorce. Rosenstiel v. Rosenstiel,
16 N.Y. 2d 64, 209 N.E. 2d 709, 2.62 N.Y.S. 2d 86 (1965), cert. denied,
384 U.S. 971 (1966). Subsequent to the Rosenstiel case, however, New
York enacted a, statute liberalizing the grounds for obtaining a divorce
through the New York courts (N. Y. Domestic Relations Law Section 170,
effective September 1,. 1967), placing a cloud upon the Rosenstiel decision..
~ 1j,
Apploved For Release 2002/01# ;$ - P85-00375R000200130001-6
 `~A p oven Fd Rel a2/01/08 4.GlA-RDP
75RQ902Q0i 3OOS? t-$r
SECRET .
According to some legal writers it is impossible to foresee the
effect of the new divorce statute on future cases involving basically
the same facts as Rosenstiel. For citations and a thorough discussion
of the relevant cases supporting the statements of this paragraph, see
Mexicans For A Day: The Consequences Of A Mexican Divorce, Air
Force JAG Law Review, Vol. X, No. 4, page 23 (July-August 1968).
6. From the foregoing, it can readily be seen why subsequent
litigation contesting the Mexican divorce is not only possible but quite
probable. This litigation can arise not only during the lifetime of the
parties to the divorce, but particularly upon the death of either party
when determining the lawful heirs and legatees to the decedent's estate.
The following examples provide a sampling of the type of plaintiffs who
have in the past initiated such subsequent litigation and the nature of it:
The spouse who obtained the Mexican decree has in some courts been
successful in subsequently having the foreign decree declared void.
More often the defendant spouse in the divorce action is the plaintiff in
subsequent litigation to have it set aside, even in those cases where he
or she appeared and consented in the Mexican decree. This litigation
often takes the form of a new "divorce action" in the appropriate U. S.
forum and, in cases where the other spouse has remarried relying upon
the Mexican decree, the grounds for the new divorce action might be
"adultery." If the defendant spouse in the Mexican decree has not sub-
sequently obtained a valid U. S. divorce before the death of the other
party to the decree, he or she might contest the divorce in order to
share in the decedent's estate as the lawful spouse. Children of the
marriage dissolved by a Mexican decree'have also contested the decree.
The plaintiff in one case sought to annul his marriage on the basis that
his spouse's previous marriage was still in effect as it was not dissolved
by the Mexican decree. In another case the plaintiff sought custody of
his children from his former spouse on the grounds that she had sub-
sequently married a man who had obtained a Mexican divorce to dissolve
his prior marriage, and therefore the former spouse was living in adultery
and an unfit mother. Last but not least, at the persuasion of a defendant
spouse in a Mexican divorce, there-is the possibility, even though
improbable, of a state prosecuting as a bigamist the other spouse who
has married relying upon the Mexican decree.
SEC':ET
Approved For Release 2002/01/08 :,CIA-RDP85-00375R000200130001-6
 . A ared.Fo kel, 112/01/A4.u.GIA,-RDP
SECRET
7. In addition to the potential prosecution and litigation
problems already enumerated, the Agency employee who is a party,
to a Mexican divorce and subsequently remarries is confronted with
serious problems affecting his or her entitlement to various govern-
ment benefits while living.and also the distribution of benefits in the
event of his or her death.
8. The Comptroller General has repeatedly held that the federal
Government is not estopped from challenging the validity of a foreign
divorce decree when its interests might be adversely affected.
36 Comp. Gen 121 (1956); 44 Comp. Gen. 485 (1965); 45 Comp. Gen. 155
(1965). In an opinion rendered 16 June 1969, B-166987, the Comptroller
General stated:
Also, it is a well established rule of the accounting
officers of the Government that they will not allow a claim against
the United States if there is substantial basis for doubt that a
court of competent jurisdiction would allow the claim. See
Longwill v. United States, 17 Ct. Cl. 788 (1881) and Charles v.
United States, 19 Ct. Cl. 316 (1884).?, - .
More specifically, the Comptroller General (B-164737, 1 August 1968)
has said:
Thus as a general-rule, we have held that, where the
validity of a second marriage is dependent upon dissolution
of the first marriage by a divorce decree of a Mexican Court
and such divorce has not been recognized by a court of com-
petent jurisdiction in the United States, the marital status of
the parties is of too doubtful legality for us to approve increased
allowances on account of such marital relationship. Compare
45 Comp. Gen., 155 (1965) and 47 Comp. Gen. 286 (1967).
(Emphasis added.)
9. Therefore, in numerous decisions the Comptroller General
has consistently held that until a U. S. court determines the validity of
.the particular Mexican divorce decree, a subsequent marriage is of too
doubtful legality to permit the Government to approve increased allowances
on account of such marital relationship. These cases have involved en-
75RQQ02QQ130001-66
App"roved For Release 2002/01/08 =q5-00375R000200130001-6
 Approved Fo*`Rel
02/01/08,.:.CIA-RDP SRQ I Q-1
SECRET.
titleinent to increased rental-and subsistence allowances, basic
allowances for quarters, and death gratuities for a surviving spouse.
While all these cases involve military personnel, there is ample
language to the effect that the holdings need not be restricted solely
to such personnel. More importantly, these decisions have been the
same whether the Mexican divorce was of the "mail order" (B-164737,
1 August 1968), "one-party" (45 Comp. Gen. 155 (1965)), or "bi-party"
(36 Comp. Gen. 121 (1956)) variety. Further, even in the case of a
"bi-party" decree obtained by domiciliaries of New York, the Comptroller
General has said that after September 1, 1967, because of the uncertainty
of section 250 added to the Domestic Relations Law of New York, the
Rosenstiel case no longer will be viewed as constituting a judicial deter-
mination of the validity of a Mexican divorce. 47 Comp. Gen. 286 (1967).
10. As to the question of a U. S. court determining the validity
of the particular Mexican divorce, the Comptroller General has recog-
nized that a state court would not grant a declaratory judgment on the
validity of the divorce, and therefore has advised the interested parties
of their right to have their entitlement to increased allowances on account
of a lawful spouse litigated in the Court of Claims of the United States and
the. United States District Courts pursuant to 28 U. S. C. 1346(2) and 1491.
36 Comp. Gen. 121 (1956), B-166987, 16 June 1969.
11.' Inasmuch as the basis for granting differentials and allowances
to Agency employees is set forth in the Standardized Regulations
(Government Civilians, Foreign Areas) issued by the Department of State,
the undersigned discussed this problem with Edward J. Lyerly, Deputy
Legal Advisor for Administration at the State Department. Lyerly advised
that in the first instance, State makes a point of advising its personnel
against obtaining foreign divorce decrees because of all the problems
associated with them and therefore, the problem rarely comes up. He
was well aware of the Comptroller General Decisions noted above and
advised that were.such a case to come before State's legal office for deter-
mination, those Decisions would be binding. However, Lyerly responded
in the negative to the undersigned's question of whether State's personnel
department or accounting officers are under directives to be on the lookout
for foreign divorce decrees in requests for increased allowances on account
of marital relationship, and where there is such an indication, to refer the
matter to legal counsel for determination. Lyerly admitted that there
probably are cases where the increased allowances are paid because
there is no awareness of or no atteii'pt to determine the existence of a
Mexican divorce.
Approved For Release 2002/01/08 gIap-OO375ROOO2OOl3OOOl-6
 .. 1W(XN4P ,Fo Re1 A2/01,1.0, .:.,CAA-RDP$~ 75RU,30001-6
SECRET
12. A number of questions arise as a consequence of the fore-
going. Perhaps the Agency should take an affirmative step and advise
its employees in a headquarters and field notice of the probable serious
consequences of obtaining a foreign divorce decree and further advise
against such action, thereby establishing Agency policy on the matter.
After all, an existing legitimate concern of the Agency, because of
security implications, is the avoidance by its employees of unnecessary
litigation. Should the Agency require what the State Department
apparently does not--that the Office of Personnel look for and be aware
of foreign divorce decrees and when found, report the same to OGC for
further determination? Perhaps the Agency, because of the very fact
of the added security problem, should require this type of scrutiny. In
any event, in those cases where the foreign decree is a known fact and
the matter presented,to this office for determination, the Comptroller
General Decisions cited above are binding. On the other hand, are there
overriding security factors which would permit us in certain situations to
vary from those Decisions? For example, as indicated above, where the
Mexican divorce has not been contested by the parties having standing to
do so and the employee cannot obtain a declaratory judgment from a state 25X1
court, the only recourse left, to the employee is to seek relief in the U. S.
Court of Claims or U. S. District Court. Assuming the employee is
13. The next problem area involves the distribution of death
benefits of a deceased employee who remarried after a Mexican divorce.
The Comptroller General in B-166987, 16 June 1969 disallowed a claim
for six months' death gratuity as surviving spouse of decedent. The
decedent's previous marriage had been dissolved by a Mexican divorce
granted to his former wife. As in the cases previously cited, the
Comptroller General said:
Eligibility of survivors to receive the six months'
death gratuity i s, governed by 10 U. S. C. 1447. That section
Approved For Release 2002/01/08 TA T00375R000200130001-6
 Appy9,yV Fp Rel, 0201/x$ CIA RDP> ~75R 1300Q1-6
SECRET
(so far as applicable here) provides that such gratuity
shall be paid to or for the living survivor highest on the
following list: (1) surviving spouse; (2) children (including
stepchildren who were part of the decedent's household at
the time of his death), in equal shares; and (3) certain per-
sons (including his parents) if designated by him.
Since you claim the gratuity as surviving spouse it
must be established that a valid marriage existed between
you and the decedent. It has long been held that where the
validity of a second marriage is dependent upon the dissolu-
tion of the first marriage by a divorce decree of a Mexican
court which has not been recognized by a court of competent
jurisdiction in the United States, the validity of the marital
status of the parties is too doubtful to justify approval by this
Office of payment of an allowance such as here involved.
It is important to note, that the decision does not discuss the type of
Mexican divorce obtained. Apparently, as in the other cases, the
"type" decree was not a relevant factor in the decision.
. 14. From the foregoing it can be seen that subsequent litigation
is probable. The question raised is who is the lawful "widow" or "sur-
viving spouse" entitled to decedent-employee's death benefits? The
following are instances in which this question is likely to arise.
15. Bureau of Employees' Compensation death benefits are
payable first to "the widow who was living with or dependent for support
upon the deceased employee at the time of his death," or "the widower
who was dependent upon the deceased employee at the time of her death."
While the language would seem to preclude the former spouse who was a
party to the Mexican divorce unless there was continued support of said
former spouse by the decedent, there is also doubt whether the current
spouse is the lawful widow or widower. The claim for BEC compensation
on account of death inquires not only as to the decedent's prior marriages,
but when and how they were terminated. It would appear, therefore, that
the claim itself would flag the fact of a Mexican divorce.
Approved, For Release 2002/01/08 yOO375ROOO2OOl 30001-6
 p oved-Fdl',Re 2/01108..;-CIA-R?P25 ~ QQ475RQWW-13O0aU'
SECRET
16. Under Social Security even a divorced wife can get widow's
benefits under certain specified conditions and restrictions. If the
legality of the divorce is disputed, a wife may be able to collect benefits
without the specified conditions or restrictions if the courts of the state
in which her husband lived would hold that the couple were still validly
married. For example, a state may not recognize the validity of certain
divorces obtained in Mexico. The wife whose husband lived in that state
may collect benefits on her husband's record. Taken from J. K. Lasser
Tax Institute, Your Social Security and Medicare Guide, Simon and
Schuster, New York, 1968, p. 56.
17. An employee may designate any beneficiary he desires with
regard to "unpaid compensation of a deceased civilian employee" and
also insurance benefits under FEGLI, UBLIC and WAEPA. However,
if there is no such designation, then as to the "unpaid compensation"
the "surviving spouse",takes the benefits. In the case of FEGLI, the
"widow or widower of the insured" takes the insurance benefits. The
FEGLI claim elicits information concerning prior marriages of the
decedent and how and when such marriages were terminated. In the
case of UBLIC and WAEPA, the estate of the. decedent receives the
insurance benefits if there is no designated beneficiary. The estate of
a decedent is distributed either by the will of decedent or if there is no
will, pursuant to state statutory precedence which generally begins with
the "surviving spouse" of decedent.
18. The application for death benefits under the Civil Service
Retirement System elicits information concerning the decedent's prior
marriages and how and when said marriages were terminated. Once
again the question arises as to who is the lawful "widow" or "widower"
for a survivor annuity? The same question arises under the CIA Retire-
ment Act.
19. It would appear that the Comptroller General Decision noted
above with respect to death benefits is binding upon the Agency in those
cases where it administers or assists in administering the benefits. In
the case of death benefits which can be substantial and unlike those cases
involving increased allowances, it is more likely that there will be a dual
claim for the decedent-employees' death benefits--that of the current
spouse and that of the former spouse involved in the Mexican divorce.
Approved For Release 2002/01/ 185-003758000200130001-6
 Approved Fd ,Ref 02/01/08~.r-CIA-RDPSS.G+0475R 0l.30AA .-.-
SECRET
20. An additional problem area arises when the employee,
after obtaining a Mexican divorce, marries a foreign national. The
first problem involves "immigration benefits" available to the foreign
national spouse. The following is taken from Gordon and Rosenfield,
Immigration Law and Procedure, Vol. I, Sec. 2. 18 (1967):
. . . In order to obtain exempt status, or to obtain
other immigration benefits available to a 'spouse,' there must,
of course, be a valid and subsisting marriage between the
parties.
Another factor which may impair the legality of
a marriage is the existence of legal impediments.... The
situation is complicated, of course, when one of the parties
has obtained a divorce of questionable soundness, such as a
Mexican mail order divorce prior to his remarriage. The
essential inquiry is whether the second marriage was regarded
as lawful at the place of its celebration. If the answer is
affirmative the marriage will be recognized for immigration
purposes. The immigration authorities ordinarily will not
question the validity of a divorce, whether granted in the United
States or in a foreign country, where one of the parties was
physically present within the court's jurisdiction. (Emphasis
added.) _
The marriage of an employee to a foreign national contracted in a foreign
country is registered with the Consulate General at the U. S. Embassy.
Lyerly, in the forementioned discussion with the undersigned, advised
that this registration is for immigration purposes to assist in procuring
the necessary documentation, and in no way purports to validate the
Mexican divorce or subsequent marriage for any other-purpose.
21. Only an alien who has been lawfully admitted to this country
for permanent residence, can be naturalized. Under the Immigration and
Nationality Act of 1952, as amended (8 U.S.C. 1427), the alien-spouse
could be naturalized five years after being admitted for permanent
residence--i. e., five years of continuous residence (domicile) in the
SECRET
Approved For Release 2002/01/08 : CIA-RDP85-00375R000200130001-6
 SECRET
United States, at least one-half of that time being physically present
within the United States. The requirement of "good moral character"
would probably not be a bar if the Mexican divorce were considered.
It was found in one naturalization case that when an alien making a
bona fide attempt to conduct himself within the law procured a Mexican
divorce without appearing personally and then entered into a marriage
in New Jersey, a denial of naturalization on the ground that the alien
was not of "good moral character" would not be justified. Petition of
Smith, 71 F. Supp. 968 (D. N.J. 1947); see Dickoff v. Shaughnessy,
142 F'. Supp. 535 (D. N. Y. 1956). Contra, Petition of DaSilva,
140 F. Supp. 596 (D. N.J. 1956).
22. A person who is married to a citizen of the United States
may become naturalized in the same way as any other alien as suggested
above under section 1427, or he or she may take advantage of special
naturalization exemptions that are granted to the spouse of a citizen of
the United States. These exemptions fall into two classes--under section
1430(a) the alien-spouse can be naturalized three years after the marriage,
having -resided in the United States for one-half of that time, or under
section 1430(b) the alien-spouse can be naturalized soon after the marriage
upon declaration in good faith that he or she intends to reside abroad with
the citizen-spouse, and then reside in the United States when the citizen-
spouse returns. From past experience this office knows that the Natural-
ization Service will not, at least in the case involving a "mail order"
Mexican divorce, permit naturalization of the alien-spouse under either
of the above two special naturalization exemptions. Naturalization,
therefore, can take place only after five years of continuous residence in
the United States prior to application. Thus, when the citizen-employee
spouse is subject to assignment abroad, an undesirable situation arises.
23. Pursuant to Agency regulations an. employee, prior to
marrying a foreign national, must receive the a roval of the Director
for retention of his employment status. . The procedure 25X1A
requires the employee to. submit his resignation concurrent with the
request for retention of employment status. As a result of a current
case involving approval of retention of employment status following
marriage to a foreign national, it is proposed that the following require-
ment be exacted in future cases seeking such approval: If the employee
has previously been married, the Office of Personnel should ascertain
how, where and when the prior marriage was dissolved. If dissolved by
a foreign divorce decree, the case should be referred to the Office of
General Counsel for an advisory opinion based upon the facts of the
particular case. The purpose of this opinion will be to point out problems.
Approved For Release 2002/01/ 85-00375R000200130001-6
Y
 Approved., , r ,f?, 200,2/,01:/.-, .GIA-R[}~: ' 37 52200130001-6
SECRET
created by the particular foreign divorce decree and will constitute
additional information which the approving authority can take into
consideration in determining whether to approve retention of employ-
ment status or accept the employee's resignation.
24. While an employee need not seek approval to retain employ-
ment prior to marrying a U. S. citizen, Agency regulations require that
the employee subsequently submit information concerning the new spouse,
which is reviewed for security purposes. It is suggested
that the same procedure as outlined in paragraph 23 -above be followed in
these cases. -
25. There are probably other problems created by the Mexican
divorce that have not been raised here. One that comes, to mind is the
tax treatment accorded the divorced parties--both income and federal
estate tax treatment. Sufficient existing and potential pitfalls have been
raised, however, to make the point.
Approved .For Release 2002/01/085 6 l 5-00375R000200130001-6
26. In summation, the foreign divorce decree, in particular the
Mexican divorce, is fraught with a host of unfavorable consequences which
continue even after the death of the party or parties to the divorce. In
the first instance, there is the prospect of outside litigation or prosecution
for reasons totally unrelated to any benefits derived from Government
employment. In the second instance, the Agency employee who remarries
is confronted with the loss of increased allowances on account of such
marital relationship. With regard to this particular problem the under-
signed has, in paragraph 12, raised certain questions and suggested some
answers. In the third instance, there is raised the problem of who is
entitled to the employee-decedent's death benefits as surviving spouse.
Due to the substantial nature of death benefits and the ever present
possibility of dual claims to those benefits, it is suggested that the
Comptroller General Decision cited in paragraph 13 is binding upon the
Agency in those cases where it administers or assists in administering the
benefits. Therefore, in any case where the employee-decedent was a party
to a Mexican divorce, it is suggested that the assistance and guidance of
this office be sought prior to the submission of any claim for, or the actual
payment of any death benefits. Finally, there are the problems associated
25X
 84-6r
2002/Q1 fQ8 a CIA rR037
SECRET.',
with the immigration and naturalization of an alien-spouse of an
employee who has received a foreign divorce decree to dissolve
a prior marriage. The undersigned has proposed a new procedure
to be applied in situations where an employee seeks prior approval
to retain employment status after marriage to a foreign national
and also when submitting information concerning marriage to a
U. S. citizen, as set forth in paragraphs 22 and 23, respectively.
27. We remain at your disposal and offer our continued
assistance in this matter.
signed.
Office of General Lounsei
cc: EA/Ex. Dir. -Compt.
DDS
D/Fin
C/,,ftudit Staff
D/Pers-SP
Approved For Release 2002/01/08 : 1T-(00375R000200130001-6
 STATINTL Approved For Release 2002/01/08 : CIA-RDP85-00375R000200130001-6
Approved For Release 2002/01/08 : CIA-RDP85-00375R000200130001-6
 Releae4OkI DP85-0~ 5I 002001 J,0001-6
/ - ;,p / gu-2--,
Approved For Release 2002/01/08 : CIA-RDP85-00375R000200136001-6
 MEMORANDUM
Approved For ec oUin1108 00130001-6
TO:
YOU WERE CALLED BY- fl YOU WERE VISITED BY-
PLEASE CALL ----30
WILL CALL AGAIN
RETURNED YOUR CALL
PHONE NO.
CODE/EXT.-
--fl IS WAITING TO SEE YOU
L1 WISHES AN APPOINTMENT
ADMINISTRATIVE - INTERNAL USE ONLY
EYES S LY
Approved REV S D rsRO02/01/0a ocrx RCM'-00375R06b~b0l30001-6
GSA FPMR (41 CFR) 101-11.6
 Approved For Pease 2002/01/08 : CIA-RDP85-00375Ip200130001-6
Mexican Divorce Decree Memoranda
DISTRIBUTION:
0 - Addressee through (Directorate & Division Chief)
1 - Director of Security
1 - General Counsel
(1 - DD/Pers/SP
Typed on-- (1 - D/Pers Subject
OP copies (1 - D/Pers Chrono
only.
OP/D/SP slr (date)
ROUTING SHEET:
Original copy - address to: Deputy Director ?
Office Director
Individual
EYES ONLY
ADMINISTRATIVE - INTERNAL USE ONLY
RYBAT
Approved For Release 2002/01/08 : CIA-RDP85-00375R000200130001-6
 25X1A Approved For Release 2002/01/08 : CIA-RDP85-00375R000200130001-6
Next 3 Page(s) In Document Exempt
Approved For Release 2002/01/08 : CIA-RDP85-00375R000200130001-6
 Approved For Reese 2002/01/08: CIA-RDP85-00375R0W200130001-6
What was the exact date and location of the divorce?
What were the grounds cited in the divorce decree or
other legal documents?
3. In what U. S. state was employee a permanent
resident, I. e. , domiciled, immediately prior to the
divorce and for how long (where did he vote, pay
income taxes, own property, ate.)?
4. Where did he physically reside immediately prior to
the divorce and for how long?
Did both he and his wife appear in court in Mexico,
did one party appear and the other appear by counsel,
did both , ppear by counsel, or did one appear and the
other,not appear even by counsel? If the last mentioned
situation, did the party not appearing know of the divorce
and how? If the absent spouse appeared by counsel can
he or she claim duress in signing the power of attorney?
Was the power of attorney notarized?
6. Did the couple have children?
7. Were provisions made for either alimony or support in
the decree? If so, was there incorporated by reference
into the divorce decree a separate agreement which was :
signed by both parties and attested to in the United States?
Was such a separate agreement negotiated by the parties',
while represented by attorneys? 8. Has any U. S. court made reference to the Mexican
divorce in any judgment or decree, e. g. , an attempt to
set aside the divorce, a declaratory judgment concerning
validity of the divorce, a collateral issue referencing the
divorce such as a custody or support suit?
9. Has the other party remarried? Are there children by
that marriage?
10. Is the other party living?
Approved For Release 2002/01/08 : CIA-RDP85-00375R000200130001-6
 Approved F 5-00375R000200130001-6
Approved For Release 2002/01/08 : CIA-RDP85-00375R000200130001-6
 Headquarters
EMPLOYEE BULLETIN
1. The following commentary originated in the Office of General
Counsel and treats with the actual and potential consequences and
problems confronting employees who obtain foreign divorces, in
particular a "Mexican divorce."
2. The term "Mexican divorce" is generally understood to
include a decree procured by any one of the following three methods:
a. The first method hereinafter termed the "Bi-party
Divorce" is one in which the plaintiff personally appears in
Mexico and where the defendant appears either in person in
Mexico or through an attorney, duly appointed by the defendant
to appear in the action for him or her.
b. Next is the so-called "One-Party Divorce" where the
plaintiff appears personally in Mexico, institutes an action
for divorce and where the defendant does not appear in person
or through an attorney, but is given notice of the proceeding
by personal service or by publication in the United States.
c. The third method is the so-called "Mail Order Divorce"
in which either one or both parties appear in the action, but
neither party is physically present in Mexico at any time. The
parties appear through attorneys, whom they appoint by mail,
and in due course receive a decree from Mexico, also by mail.
3. It can be stated unequivocally that the "mail order divorce"
is not recognized by any American jurisdiction. The overwhelming
majority of states that have ruled on the validity of the "one-party
divorce" have held the decrees to be invalid. Lastly, even the
"bi-party divorce" has been invalidated by some states that have
ruled on them. New York appears to be the most notable exception
by generally recognizing the validity of the "bi-party" Mexican divorce.
Approved For R 3002 1J 8 : Y%A -GD31RP00200130001-6
 Approved or q, OQ2/ Q IA7I DPPSP0375%00200130001-6
inn Mexican divorce has been thw-- suh ec' of consid- r??able
4acoon, Such litigation can arise n(t only "ring the , fetiryrP
-_. parties to _
to the divorce, but >7artsc: i~ar_ey on the death of-
..ey ?Partu when determining the lawful neirs t the deced-nt's
tom=. in addition to potential litigation :-.Pro Pems, the acrencu
.loge who is a party to a Mexican dive rce and ubsequentlu
rr .-s is confronted with serious nro;
:.:'ems af',,,,ct_zng his or
enn_ tiement to various government ber=atits w -AP living and
is _ distribution of benefits effts in the ,vent o his or her death.
sed Allowances on Account of Marital ;nlationshi z:
. x ne Comptro_?ler. >'eneral has rent==itediq -id that the
ra i- government is not prevented from 7hal l enr na the validity
a. fc %ei an divorce decree when its interests m h t be adve rse l u
c. te?:i . In numerous aecis ions the Comn r rot l per =Pneral has
consistently held that until a court of rampeten, jurisdiction in
a Jn.itea States determines the validitu of the iarticular
can divorce decree, a subsequent mare age is of too doubtful
Ora to permit the Government to approve i ncr rased allowances
an account or such marital relationship. These r =ses have involve-d
r_itlemenr_ to increased auarters and sut.:istence allowances.
tner_^aore, these decisions have been th _ same a 'et_her the
x__a__ divorce was of the rrma'l order," One-T?aYtU.rr or nbI'-i?artLlrr
variety. Rven in the case of a "hi-oartU decr?ef obtained L
.smiciiiaries of New York. the Comptrolle- Genorn has said that
'eotember 1, la67, Aecause of= uncer,-aint_u i wised by new
or the Domestic Relations Law of New ' os the New :Yoork
loner will be viewed as const_it tiny a P'udicial deter-
of the validity of a Mexican dive rce.
0- As to the question of a comneter- court n the U.S.
m ring the validity of the particula Mex.aca r divorce, the
?motrailer General has recognized that a state c urt would not
a,r a declaratory udgme_nt on the valid to of t ?e divorce, and
e .fore ryas advises the interested part es or t weir right to
aavy th._ir entitlement to increased allowances or account of a
Awful snouse litigated in the Court of C aims of the United
itstjs and the United States District Courts. It is evident,
r 'e._ that even this recourse is u.nava._ labie r, many Agen"-7
p : ees .
stributaor of Death ;Pnerits
next problem area involves n e distr bution of death
fits or a deceased emplouee who rema r r . ed aft r a Mexican d i yr rce ,
Dorn rrol ier General. u i.nq the same r-- tiona le applied in the
Approved;For-Re lease _ 2002/01/08 : CIA-RD,P85-00375R000200130001-6
_. FIITF't