SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-4400-16T2

SOAD G. IBRAHIM,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

ABDEL FATTAH MAHMOUD,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________________

Submitted June 26, 2018 – Decided August 

Before Judges Simonelli and Koblitz. 

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, 

Chancery Division, Family Part, Morris County, 

Docket No. FM-14-1280-16.

Celli, Schlossberg, De Meo & Giusti, PC, 

attorneys for appellant (Katherine E. Giusti, 

on the brief).

Respondent has not filed a brief.

PER CURIAM

Defendant Abdel Fattah Mahmoud appeals from the May 5, 2017 

Family Part order, which denied without prejudice his motion to 

terminate alimony. On appeal, Mahmoud contends, in part, that the 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.

21, 2018
2 A-4400-16T2

trial court lacked jurisdiction to award alimony to plaintiff Soad 

G. Ibrahim. We affirm.

The parties were married in Egypt, and divorced in Egypt 

pursuant to an Egyptian certificate of divorce recorded on November 

16, 2002. Ibrahim was not awarded alimony in the divorce 

proceeding. After the parties moved to New Jersey, Ibrahim filed 

a motion for an order registering the Egyptian divorce here and 

awarding her alimony. Mahmoud was served with, but did not oppose,

the motion. In an August 2, 2016 order, the trial court granted 

the motion, registered the Egyptian divorce in New Jersey, and 

awarded Ibrahim temporary alimony of $800 per month, effective May 

10, 2016. The parties filed several motions thereafter regarding 

the alimony award. The court entered several orders, which 

terminated and then reinstated the alimony award. 

On January 31, 2017, Mahmoud filed yet another motion to 

terminate alimony, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction to award 

alimony, Ibrahim was not entitled to alimony, and he was unable 

to pay. In a May 5, 2017 order, the court denied the motion and 

made findings of fact and conclusions of law in a comprehensive 

written statement of reasons. This appeal followed.

As a threshold matter, Mahmoud's notice of appeal states he 

is only appealing from the May 5, 2017 order. "[I]t is only the 

judgments or orders or parts thereof designated in the notice of 
3 A-4400-16T2

appeal which are subject to the appeal process and review." 

Pressler & Verniero, Current N.J. Court Rules, cmt. 6.1 on R. 2:5-

1(f)(1) (2018); see also 1266 Apartment Corp. v. New Horizon Deli, 

Inc., 368 N.J. Super. 456, 459 (App. Div. 2004). Thus, Mahmoud's 

challenge to prior orders entered in this matter is not properly 

before this court. See W.H. Indus., Inc. v. Fundicao Balancins, 

Ltda, 397 N.J. Super. 455, 458 (App. Div. 2008). Accordingly, we 

limit our review to the May 5, 2017 order.

Mahmoud does not contest the validity of the Egyptian divorce

or challenge the order registering the certificate of divorce in 

New Jersey. Rather, he argues the court lacked jurisdiction to 

award alimony because the parties were divorced in Egypt and he 

was not subject to personal jurisdiction in New Jersey because 

there was no evidence he resided or owned property here at the 

time of the divorce. This argument lacks merit.

"Whether it is appropriate for a court to exert personal 

jurisdiction is not examined from a standpoint of what disputes 

the forum may have an interest in adjudicating, but is instead 

guided by the fairness of the choice of forum from the defendant's

viewpoint." Tatham v. Tatham, 429 N.J. Super. 502, 509-10 (App. 

Div. 2013). "That is, the court must look to a defendant's 

connection to the forum and whether it is fair -- in the 

constitutional sense -- for the defendant to be haled into the 
4 A-4400-16T2

forum to litigate the dispute." Id. at 510 (citation omitted). 

As we held: 

In the matrimonial context, the test is the 

same; the court must examine whether there is 

"a sufficient connection between the defendant 

and the forum State to make it fair to require 

defense of the action in the forum," which 

involves a consideration of whether a 

defendant has had the requisite minimum 

contacts with New Jersey, and whether the 

exercise of jurisdiction comports with "fair 

play and substantial justice[.]"

[Ibid. (citations omitted).] 

"These principles are designed to ensure that a defendant is not 

unfairly burdened with litigating in a distant or inconvenient 

forum and that the forum does not exceed the rightful limits of 

its sovereignty." Ibid. (citation omitted).

The record in this case confirms that Mahmoud lived in 

Chester, New Jersey throughout this matter. Accordingly, the 

court had in personam jurisdiction over him and authority to award 

alimony to Ibrahim. See N.J.S.A. 2A:34-8 (providing that "[t]he 

Superior Court shall have jurisdiction of an action for alimony 

and maintenance when the defendant is subject to the personal 

jurisdiction of the court, is a resident of this State, or has 

tangible or intangible real or personal property within the 

jurisdiction of the court").

Affirmed.