Prisoned husband in contempt for not transferring Gaza Strip property
Tennessee case summary on property division and contempt in divorce.
Imprisoned husband found in contempt for not transferring Gaza Strip property.
Nehad Abdelnabi v. Fatma Adel Sekik
The wife in this Knox County, Tennessee, case was from Cairo, Egypt, and the husband was from Palestine. They were married in 1996, and moved to Knoxville where they had four children. One of them had a significant disability. After the husband spent 17 years in prison for kidnapping a man whom he believed to be involved with his wife, they divorced in 2019. It was discovered during the case that the husband was dissipating marital assets with the help of his brother and sister-in-law, who were added to the proceedings.
One of the marital assets was property located in the Gaza Strip, and the trial court ordered income for this property to go to the wife. The court also ordered that the husband sign a quitclaim document or other necessary document to transfer the Gaza property from him to his wife. The wife filed a criminal contempt action against the husband and his relatives in 2021. This was later amended to also include civil contempt. The case was split and in 2022 a Zoom hearing, where all parties were present, was held. The evidence showed the Gaza property was not being sold as required. The trial court found the husband and his relatives in contempt. The husband was ordered to give his brother a power-of-attorney to sell the properties in 120 days and deposit any proceeds into a trust. The Tennessee Court of Appeals heard an appeal. The husband was acting pro se, and the other parties had attorneys.
The husband first argued that the trial court should have continued the case to give him time to find an attorney. The wife pointed out he had ample time to find an attorney, about a one-year period since the petition was submitted, and that there was no evidence that he actually tried. The appeals court agreed that the husband had ample time to find an attorney, even though he was not indigent.
Therefore, it affirmed the lower court’s order denying a continuance.
The appeals court next affirmed the contempt finding against the relatives. It noted that they made little or no attempt to comply with the orders, and found that this was willful disobedience.
The husband argued that he was incarcerated and unable to comply. The trial court determined that he was able to comply in some way, and the appeals courts agreed. It also found that the husband did not make any effort to sell the Gaza properties. The Court of Appeals found that the appeal had been filed to delay the sale of the Gaza properties. It also awarded her attorney’s fee on appeal.
