A German national residing in Scotland has failed in her attempt to halt divorce proceedings there while she awaits the resolution of legal separation proceedings initiated in California. The Outer House of the Court of Session determined that fairness and convenience supported continuing the Scottish case, despite the family’s deeper ties to the United States.
The dispute centers on a couple who wed in Las Vegas in 2006 and separated in December 2024. They share three children, all born in the U.S. and holding American citizenship. The husband, who holds dual UK-U.S. citizenship, returned to California in May 2026 after contested proceedings prompted the family’s relocation back to the U.S. Meanwhile, the wife—a medical consultant—remained in Scotland.
The wife first filed for divorce in Scotland in August 2025, but her initial petition was dismissed. She refiled in November 2025, with a four-day proof scheduled to begin in October 2026. The husband had earlier initiated divorce proceedings in California in June 2025 but withdrew them in October of that year. He later filed for legal separation in July 2026, with plans to convert it to divorce once he satisfied California’s residency requirement by November 27, 2026.
The husband contended that California was the more suitable jurisdiction, citing the family’s long-term residence there, the children’s upbringing in the U.S., and the location of most marital assets—including property, bank accounts, and trusts. He also highlighted the difficulties of litigating in Scotland while residing in California and representing himself without legal counsel.
Lady Tait, the presiding judge, acknowledged the family’s stronger connection to California. The couple had lived there for most of their marriage, the children were born and currently reside there, and two heritable properties were located in California. However, she concluded that these factors did not outweigh the advanced stage of the Scottish proceedings.
Legal tests block delay request
Under the Domicile and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1973, a Scottish court may pause divorce proceedings if another jurisdiction is clearly more appropriate. The husband sought a discretionary sist, either under the 1973 Act or based on forum non conveniens. Lady Tait noted that both legal tests required the party seeking the pause to demonstrate that another forum was clearly more suitable.
The wife argued that the Scottish proceedings were already well advanced, with a proof scheduled for October 2026. In contrast, divorce proceedings in California could not begin until late November at the earliest, and contested actions might not conclude until 2027 or 2028. She also emphasized the expenses she had already incurred in Scotland and the risk of duplicating financial claims if forced to relitigate in California.
Read Also: Smart Glasses Pose Legal, Privacy Challenges for Employers
The wife alleged mismanagement of matrimonial assets and income, including failure to account for funds. While Lady Tait emphasized these were unproven claims, she recognized they could influence the urgency of the case.
Judge prioritizes Scottish timeline over U.S. ties
Lady Tait ruled that granting a sist at this stage would unfairly disadvantage the wife. The Scottish proceedings were set for resolution in 2026, whereas California’s divorce process could extend into 2027 or beyond. She rejected the argument that Scotland was an impractical forum due to the location of assets, noting that two significant properties were in California.
“Determination in respect of foreign assets is not uncommon for this court,” she observed. She also pointed out that the husband, now based in the U.S., could assist with disclosing Californian documents in the Scottish proceedings.
The judge concluded that while the family’s overall connection was to the U.S., the balance of fairness and convenience favored continuing the Scottish action. The husband’s motion for a sist was denied, and the matter of expenses was reserved for later determination.
California divorce process faces long delays
The husband’s plan to later convert the legal separation into divorce proceedings was considered speculative. Under California’s divorce laws, divorce requires a six-month separation period and physical presence in the state for at least six months before filing. Even if the husband met the residency requirement by November 27, 2026, the divorce could not proceed until December 27 at the earliest. If contested, the process might stretch into 2027 or 2028, as California courts often face backlogs. By contrast, the Scottish proof was set for October 2026, with financial claims already at an advanced stage.
The Scottish proceedings will now proceed as scheduled, with the husband free to pursue his legal separation in California. Its conversion to divorce would require meeting residency requirements and the wife’s consent, which she has indicated she will not provide.