Full Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ."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-3624-24 GONZALO EZEQUIEL WALDMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CHEN YING, Defendant-Respondent. ________________________ Argued October 21, 2026 – Decided November 13, 2026 Before Judges Puglisi and Jacobs. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Essex County, Docket No. FM-07-1858-24. Anthony Scordo (Anthony Scordo, PC) argued the cause for appellant. Respondent has not filed a brief. PER CURIAM Plaintiff Gonzalo Ezequiel Waldman appeals from a December 12, 2024 order dismissing his complaint for annulment of his marriage to defendant Chen Ying, and the March 28, 2025 and June 19, 2025 orders denying reconsideration of the dismissal order. For the following reasons, we reverse and remand for further proceedings. Plaintiff, a resident of Essex County, filed a complaint for annulment on February 14, 2024. According to the complaint, he and defendant were married in 2015 in a civil ceremony in China. At the time, plaintiff was a citizen of Argentina, and defendant was a citizen of China. Plaintiff alleged the cause of action for annulment arose on the date of the marriage ceremony, because he "was ignorant that the one and only reason defendant wished to be married to [him] was to secure resident alien status and[/]or citizenship in the United Arab Emirates or the United States so she could retain her China[-]based job and reside abroad." Although the complaint was initially administratively rejected, plaintiff objected to that determination and the complaint was accepted for filing in April 2024. When plaintiff subsequently moved for entry of default, the court entered an order dismissing the complaint for lack of jurisdiction because the complaint alleged the cause of action arose when both parties were domiciled in China. A-3624-24 2 Plaintiff's subsequent motions for reconsideration were denied for procedural reasons: the first for lack of service on defendant and as untimely; and the second as untimely. 1 On September 9, 2025, we granted plaintiff's motion for leave to file his notice of appeal as within time. "Appellate review of a ruling on jurisdiction is plenary because the question of jurisdiction is a question of law." Rippon v. Smigel, 449 N.J. Super. 344, 358 (App. Div. 2017). Our review of jurisdictional determinations "is thus de novo." Ibid. Under that standard, "[a] trial court's interpretation of the law and the legal consequences that flow from established facts are not entitled to any special deference [on appeal]." Pullen v. Galloway, 461 N.J. Super. 587, 596 (App. Div. 2019) (alterations in original) (quoting Manalapan Realty, L.P. v. Twp. Comm. of Manalapan, 140 N.J. 366, 378 (1995)). N.J.S.A. 2A:34-8 vests the Superior Court with "jurisdiction of all causes of divorce, dissolution of a civil union, bed and board divorce, legal separation from a partner in a civil union couple or nullity when either party is a bo na fide resident of this State." Jurisdiction in an annulment action is acquired when: "a. Either party is a bona fide resident of this State at the time of the 1 The trial court's June 19, 2025 order provides: "Plaintiff may re-file his [c]omplaint for [a]nnulment if he deems appropriate." A-3624-24 3 commencement of the action; and b. Process is served upon the defendant as prescribed by the rules of the Supreme Court." N.J.S.A. 2A:34-9. "'[T]he words "bona fide resident" are synonymous with "domiciliary" and mean that plaintiff or defendant must be actually domiciled within New Jersey.'" Innes v. Carrascosa, 391 N.J. Super. 453, 482 (App. Div. 2007) (alteration in original) (quoting Gosschalk v. Gosschalk, 48 N.J. Super. 566, 572 (App. Div.), aff'd, 28 N.J. 73 (1958)). Here, it appears the trial court mistakenly considered the jurisdictional conditions for a divorce complaint, which, in part, require a party to be a bona fide resident of the State "at the time the cause of action arose . . . to the time of the commencement of the action." N.J.S.A. 2A:34-10(1). However, this provision only applies to an action for divorce from marriage or dissolution of a civil union, not a complaint for annulment, which is governed by N.J.S.A. 2A:34-9. The complaint stated plaintiff was a resident of New Jersey, and a subsequent affidavit of service indicated defendant was personally served with the summons and complaint. Absent any facts to the contrary, plaintiff established the Superior Court has jurisdiction of this matter. We therefore reverse the order dismissing the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. A-3624-24 4 Reversed and remanded. We do not retain jurisdiction. A-3624-24 5