Gonzalez Canevero v. Rexach, 85-1793
Decision Date | 16 June 1986 |
Docket Number | No. 85-1793,85-1793 |
Citation | 793 F.2d 417 |
Parties | Hannah GONZALEZ CANEVERO, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. Richard REXACH, etc., Defendant, Appellee. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit |
David Efron, Hato Rey, P.R., on brief, for plaintiff, appellant.
Jose R. Jimenez Del Valle, San Juan, P.R., on brief, for defendant, appellee.
Before CAMPBELL, Chief Judge, BREYER and TORRUELLA, Circuit Judges.
Hannah Gonzalez Canevero brought suit in federal court against Richard Rexach, who is her former husband, and R&R Construction Corporation. 1 She alleged that the court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1332 because the parties are citizens of different states and the amount in controversy exceeds ten thousand dollars. Gonzalez alleged that she is a fifty percent shareholder in R&R, which is controlled by her former husband; that the corporation owns a piece of real estate; and that she requested an accounting regarding the affairs of the corporation, with a view towards partitioning and distributing her property, but that Rexach had refused her request. She sought money damages equal to her half interest in the property or an order to partition the property.
Defendants answered that plaintiff owned no shares in the corporation, and argued that the complaint failed to state a claim for relief.
The court observed that Gonzalez and Rexach were divorced in Florida, and noted that "[a]pparently no property was distributed by the Florida divorce." The court construed the action before it as a request to obtain a distribution of the community property. It dismissed on the grounds that the suit was a domestic relations dispute, not properly encompassed within its diversity jurisdiction.
Gonzalez filed a motion for reconsideration in which she insisted that the action was not a domestic relations matter. She alleged that all the community property had been liquidated in the Florida divorce, "although this was done without involving any formal or legal proceeding." She accuses defendants of playing "the game of 'corporations,' " an unexplained and consequently oblique reference.
The parties agree, as of course they must, that 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1332 does not confer jurisdiction over domestic relations issues. Ex Parte Burrus, 136 U.S. 586, 593-94, 10 S.Ct. 850, 852-53, 34 L.Ed. 500 (1890) () The only issue on appeal 2 is how to characterize Gonzalez' suit: does it implicate issues of domestic relations or is it independent of the former marriage?
Gonzalez cites various cases which stand for the proposition that an action between former spouses that does not require "the adjustment of family status or establishing familial duties or determining the existence of a breach of such duties does not contravene the domestic relations exception to federal diversity jurisdiction." Raftery v. Scott, 756 F.2d 335, 338 (4th Cir.1985); see Kelser v. Anne Arundel County Department of Social Services, 679 F.2d 1092, 1094-95 (4th Cir.1982); Lloyd v. Loeffler, 539 F.Supp. 998, 1003 (E.D.W.I.), aff'd. 694 F.2d 489 (7th Cir.1982); Turpin v. Turpin, 415 F.Supp. 12, 14 (W.D.O.K.1975); cf. Crouch v. Crouch, 566 F.2d 486, 487-88 (5th Cir.1978) ( ); Solomon v. Solomon, 516 F.2d 1018, 1024 (3rd Cir.1975) ( ); Anastasi v. Anastasi, 532 F.Supp. 720, 724-25 (D.N.J.1982) ( ).
We have held, in discussing the exception, that "federal courts should abstain from adjudicating claims that are closely related to, though not within, the jurisdictional exception." Sutter v. Pitts, 639 F.2d 842, 843 (1st Cir.1981). We have also noted that "it has been held that a federal court--even where it has jurisdiction--may abstain...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Dibbs v. Gonsalves
...followed by federal courts in abstaining from exercising jurisdiction over domestic relation controversies. In Gonzalez Canevero v. Rexach, 793 F.2d 417 (1st Cir.1986), the ex-wife filed a diversity action against her ex-husband, alleging that she was a fifty (50%) percent shareholder in a ......
-
Vélez v. León (In re León), CASE NO. 12-01251 (ESL)
...jurisdiction to Bankruptcy Courts over domestic relations issues"). To support his contention, the Defendant cites González Canevero v. Rexach, 793 F.2d 417 (1st Cir. 1986). In Mooney v. Mooney, 471 F.3d. 246, 248 (1st Cir. 2006), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit ruled that t......
-
Fernos-Lopez v. Figarella Lopez
...for divorce, alimony, child support, child custody, and other "domestic relations" matters. See, e.g., Gonzalez Canevero v. Rexach, 793 F.2d 417, 418 (1st Cir.1986) (per curiam); Sutter v. Pitts, 639 F.2d 842, 843-44 (1st Cir.1981); Armstrong v. Armstrong, 508 F.2d 348, 349-50 (1st Cir.1974......
-
Rubin v. Smith, Civ. No. 92-273-SD.
...directly affecting divorce, alimony, or child support. See, e.g., id. at 844 n. 4 (plaintiffs request custody); Gonzalez Canevero v. Rexach, 793 F.2d 417, 418 (1st Cir.1986) (plaintiff seeks property "interest by virtue of her former marriage to the defendant"); Armstrong v. Armstrong, 508 ......