Attorney Claims He Was Not Married But Just Lied To Get A Table At The Inn At Little Washington

The divorce of two Serbians – one an attorney employed at Ernst & Young and Patton Boggs – drew the attention of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, which concluded that the trial court erred in its treatment of whether the parties were married  based on either Serbian or D.C. common law prior to their 2010 wedding ceremony.

The parties met in Serbia in February or March of 2003. Although the exact date of their first meeting is in dispute, the parties agree that they first spent a significant amount of time together when they met at a restaurant opening they had attended separately; they met there again on April 15, 2003. According to Cerovic, she and Stojkov first had sexual relations on April 17, 2003, at which time they agreed to live together as husband and wife. Stojkov concurred that they quickly entered into a romantic and sexual relationship, but denied that they had an understanding about living together as a married couple. The trial court credited Stojkov’s testimony, concluding that Cerovic’s claim was “not credible” because she and Stojkov had at that time been alone together only twice. The trial court noted that the parties did not “merge any finances, bills, bank accounts or utilities,” and that Cerovic did not have a key to Stojkov’s apartment or contribute to his rent. According to Stojkov’s brother, whose testimony was credited by the trial court, Cerovic and Stojkov would spend many nights at each other’s residences, but each kept his or her own apartment, furnishings, and possessions. Cerovic’s grandmother testified that the parties spent all their time together from when they first met in 2003 and that Cerovic moved into Stojkov’s apartment, although they would also sometimes spend the night in her apartment. Cerovic told her grandparents that she loved Stojkov and wanted to marry him. To allay the grandparents’ concern about the future of their only grandchild, the grandmother testified, Stojkov reassured them that “Ivana is now my wife and as my wife she will be perfectly taken care of.”1The trial court concluded, as a factual matter, that the parties did not “cohabit” while they resided in Serbia.

In May of 2003, while on vacation in Portugal, the parties agreed to become engaged before Stojkov was scheduled to leave for the United States. They announced their engagement at a gathering of family and friends in Serbia in June of 2003, at which time Stojkov gave Cerovic a diamond engagement ring. Stojkov’s father also presented Cerovic with a gift, according to Serbian custom. The trial court found, as a factual matter, that the parties became engaged in June of 2003.

In early July 2003 Stojkov returned, alone, to the United States for work. At the time he was employed full-time as an attorney at Ernst & Young and owned an apartment at 2320 Wisconsin Avenue, Northwest, in the District of Columbia, which he had purchased in December of 2001. Cerovic was employed full-time in Serbia, but she took a leave of absence from her employment and followed Stojkov to the United States in August 2003 on a tourist visa. The two lived together in the Wisconsin Avenue apartment for the duration of Cerovic’s stay in the United States, until she had to return to Serbia in July of the following year when her tourist visa expired. She cooked meals and cleaned the apartment. As she was unable to be employed on her tourist visa, she volunteered for the Serbian Unity Congress. She also supervised renovations to the Wisconsin Avenue apartment, for which Stojkov paid.

There was conflicting evidence

The trial court was presented with evidence that the parties considered themselves to be married during the years they lived together in the District of Columbia (2003-04 and 2005-10). A menu from a restaurant (The Inn at Little Washington in Virginia) dated April 15, 2005, wished the parties “Happy Anniversary.” The trial court credited Stojkov’s testimony, however, that he misled the restaurant by lying about the anniversary in order to get a table on short notice, and noted that there was no evidence of other anniversary celebrations or cards during the seven-year period Cerovic claimed they had deemed themselves to be married..,Cerovic’s childhood friend testified that Stojkov addressed Cerovic using the Serbian word “žena/o,” which means both “wife” and “woman.” In a letter to his father, Stojkov referred to Cerovic as “snajki,” which can mean both “daughter-in-law” and “lass” or “girl.” 

There was also evidence that the parties did not consider themselves to be married. Friends testified that they did not hold themselves out as a married couple; a neighbor testified that nothing either of them said or did indicated that they were married as opposed to living together in a romantic relationship; and a friend testified that they never referred to each other as “husband” or “wife” and did not wear wedding rings. The trial court took note that Cerovic and Stojkov did not maintain a joint bank account3 or a joint budget, did not assume a common name, owned real property separately, did not have joint debts, and paid bills in their own names without contribution from the other. Additionally, while Stojkov was employed with Patton Boggs, LLP, from 2004 to 2008, he identified himself as single, without any dependents, on personnel records and yearly health insurance enrollment forms, and Stojkov listed Cerovic as his “fiancée” on an insurance beneficiary designation form.

The circumstances of the ceremony

Cerovic testified that Stojkov suggested that they should get married in February or March of 2010. According to Cerovic, the wedding was a “confirmation” of their marital status, and was undertaken to allay any question from United States immigration authorities about the validity of their Serbian union. Stojkov acknowledged that he was prompted to suggest marriage at that time because Cerovic’s visa was to expire later in 2010, and she needed to apply for a green card based on their marriage. He testified, however, that even though the timing of his proposal was related in part to Cerovic’s immigration status, he was motivated by love and affection. He wished to “patch up” and “rekindle” their relationship which had deteriorated, including a physical altercation at the end of 2009, and hoped that marriage would be “an expression of love and commitment.” They were married in a ceremony held in Las Vegas on April 15, 2010. The court found that they spent “many thousands of dollars” on Cerovic’s wedding dress and shoes, wedding bands, travel, hotel, photographs and other expenses incident to their wedding ceremony.

But bliss was elusive

The parties’ relationship did not improve and they separated in November 2010, seven months after the wedding in Las Vegas. On October 3, 2011, Cerovic filed a petition for a civil protection order against Stojkov; Stojkov filed his own petition on November 3, 2011. After a temporary protection order was issued, both cases were subsequently dismissed with prejudice, at the request of the parties, on July 6, 2012.

The court

We reverse and remand the case so that the trial court may (1) determine whether Cerovic proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, that she and Stojkov entered into a marriage under Serbian or District of Columbia law prior to 2010; (2) recalculate the parties’ marital debt, without the attorney’s fees incurred in connection with their divorce; (3) reconsider, in light of the recalculation of marital debt, and, possibly of marital property (if it is determined that the parties had a prior marriage), the equitable distribution between the parties under D.C. Code § 16-910, and, if appropriate, whether alimony payments to Cerovic are warranted under § 16-910 (d); (4) consider whether attorney’s fees should be awarded to either party under D.C. Code § 16-911; and (5) reconsider the sanction.

According to this link, the husband is a member of the D.C. Bar.

Wonder if the Office of Disciplinary Counsel will pick up on the false statement. Does lying to get a reservation amount to a Rule 8.4 (c) violation?

Senior Judge Ruiz authored the opinion. (Mike Frisch)