A Sint Maarten man sought counseling or legal separation, but judges upheld his wife’s request to end the marriage.
PHILIPSBURG:--- A husband’s attempt to prevent the dissolution of his marriage has failed before the Joint Court of Justice, which upheld a Sint Maarten divorce ruling after finding that his wife remained firm in her decision to end the relationship.
The man wanted the couple referred to mediation or counseling to save their marriage. Alternatively, he requested a legal separation instead of divorce.
The appeals court rejected both requests in its September 8, 2026, ruling, published on October 5. The published decision withholds the parties' identities.
Wife maintained marriage was over
The couple married in Sint Maarten on April 15, 2014, under a community property arrangement. The marriage produced no children.
The wife petitioned for divorce, which the Court of First Instance granted on January 19, 2026, rejecting the husband’s requests for counseling or legal separation.
He appealed on February 27, seeking to overturn that decision.
At the appeal hearing in Sint Maarten on August 25, both spouses addressed the court, partly with an interpreter’s assistance. The husband attended with his lawyer, M.M. Hofman-Ruigrok, who presented arguments using an English-language pleading. The wife represented herself and had not submitted a written response to the appeal.
The judges found that she nevertheless made her position clear at the hearing: she could no longer live with her husband and did not want to resume their life together.
Court finds irretrievable breakdown
The court cited an established legal principle that a spouse’s reasoned and persistent declaration that they can no longer live with their partner is a strong indication that the marriage has irretrievably broken down.
In this case, the husband had not presented sufficient grounds to persuade the judges that the marriage remained viable despite his wife’s position.
The court therefore upheld the divorce and rejected his request for mediation or counseling.
It also rejected his proposed legal separation. The judges explained that, where a marriage has irretrievably broken down and there are no minor children born of the marriage, a spouse seeking divorce does not have to accept legal separation instead.
Late Property Request Also Rejected
The husband additionally sought an order dividing the marital community property equally, with compensation payable if either spouse received more than their share.
He introduced that request in a letter dated August 20, just days before the appeal hearing, accompanied by a detailed proposal, new assertions and supporting documents.
The court found that the spouses fundamentally disagreed about how to divide their property. It also noted that the husband’s lawyer objected to the wife submitting documents supporting her own position.
According to the judges, the parties appeared not to have made serious efforts to reach an agreement and had not consulted a notary.
Taking up the newly introduced property dispute at the appeal stage would also deprive them of judicial consideration. The court consequently rejected the request as inconsistent with the requirements of orderly and fair proceedings.
That decision did not determine which spouse should receive particular assets.
Divorce Ruling Stands
The Joint Court affirmed the lower court’s decision and rejected the husband’s request for additional property. It made no order requiring either party to pay the other’s legal costs.
Judges G.C.C. Lewin, E.M. van der Bunt, and E.W.A. Vonk delivered the ruling, which was pronounced publicly in Curaçao.