I watched President Trump meet with Chinese President Xi Jinping in Washington D.C. last week.   Trade was on the agenda. So was artificial intelligence. Taiwan. Iran. Technology. The long and complicated relationship between two countries whose economies are deeply connected even when their governments and legal systems are not.

It reminded me of a divorce case the Court of Appeals recently resolved: Hua v. Yuan (2026).[1] Of course it did, I am a family lawyer.

This particular case involved two Chinese citizens, a divorce in China, millions of dollars invested in Washington State, several Washington State holding companies, and real estate in and around Seattle.

It also involved a surprisingly difficult question: What happens when a court in one country ends the marriage in China, but the real property is sitting in the United States?

A Marriage in China. Real Estate in Washington State.

The couple married in China in 2009.  Not long afterward, they began traveling to the United States looking for real estate investment opportunities. In 2014, they bought a home in Washington State. Over the following years, the husband formed and funded several Washington State companies that bought additional Washington real estate. More than $8.5 million was eventually invested through the Washington entities, according to the appellate record.

Then came the divorce.  Wife filed for divorce in King County in 2019.  Husband remained living in China.  And suddenly something as basic as handing someone divorce papers became an international legal problem.

You Can’t Just Mail the Papers to China

Serving a lawsuit in Washington State is relatively straightforward. Serving someone in China with United States litigation is not.   China and the United States are parties to the Hague Service Convention (Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters). China requires requests for service under the Convention to go through its Central Authority and has formally objected to the Convention’s Article 10 methods, including service through postal mail or direct service.

In our case, the King County court concluded that the initial personal service in China did not comply with the Hague Service Convention. Wife then attempted service through the Convention process. According to the later Court of Appeals opinion, a Chinese court clerk called the husband; he said he was in the United States, while the property manager at his Chinese residence indicated he was home. The clerk ultimately returned the papers to the court without completing service.

Meanwhile, something else happened.  The husband obtained a divorce in China.

And the Chinese court dissolved the marriage.  But it did not address the assets in the United States.  Divorced in China.  Property still in Washington.  Washington State does not recognize foreign country  divorce judgments.  RCW 6.40A.020(2)(c).

Now what?

Washington Has a Statute

Washington’s property-division statute contains a provision that is particularly important in international cases.

RCW 26.09.080 expressly contemplates a later Washington proceeding to dispose of property after a dissolution entered by a court that lacked personal jurisdiction over the absent spouse or lacked jurisdiction to dispose of the property. The Washington court is directed to make a just and equitable disposition after considering the usual statutory factors.

That sounds promising.  But jurisdiction is only the beginning.  You still have to determine what the spouses actually own, and that became the next problem for the Wife.

Owning Shares in A Corporation Is Not the Same as Owning the Building

The Washington State real estate was not titled directly in the spouses’ names.  Title to the real estate was held through corporations and LLCs.

That distinction mattered enormously.  Wife initially sought partition of the Washington properties. But the trial court dismissed that action because she could not establish that she personally was a tenant in common with the entities holding title.

The Court of Appeals later emphasized a basic but critical principle of business law: an LLC is legally distinct from its members. A member does not personally own the LLC’s individual assets. Similarly, a shareholder does not personally own the corporation’s real estate.

In other words:  A marital interest in a company that owns a Seattle building is not necessarily the same thing as owning half of the Seattle building.  That distinction can completely change the legal analysis.  It also illustrates why international asset cases require more than simply asking, “Where is the real estate?”

You have to ask:

1. Who holds title?
2. Who owns the entity?
3. When was the entity formed?
4. Where did the money come from?
5. What did the foreign divorce decree actually divide?
6. And what claim is still available in Washington?\

Then Came the Clock

Eventually, Wife filed an action under RCW 26.09.080 seeking division of property that had not been distributed in the Chinese divorce.

But there was another problem.  Time.

The Court of Appeals concluded that the interest at issue was personal property rather than the underlying real estate, because the properties were owned by the entities rather than by the former spouses themselves. That meant the court applied a three-year statute of limitations rather than the ten-year limitation applicable to recovery of real property.

The court also concluded that the clock had begun running by January 2021, Wife filed the earlier partition action and therefore knew the essential facts underlying her claim. Her July 2024 action came too late.  The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal.

That is an important lesson in cases involving property when one party is in China.  Because international cases are not simply about whether a Washington court could eventually have authority to address an asset. They are also about whether the parties took the right procedural steps, against the right parties, under the right legal theory and whether the steps were taken in time.

Cross-Border Divorce Is Really a Series of Jurisdiction Questions

Clients understandably want a simple answer.  “We divorced in China. Can I get my share of the Washington real property?”

Maybe, but that one question can actually contain several different questions.

1. Does Washington have jurisdiction over the person?
2. Does Washington have authority concerning the property?
3. Was the foreign divorce entitled to recognition? (Probably not under RCW 6.40A.020(2)(c).)
4. Is the asset the real estate or an ownership interest in the company that owns it?
5. Can the other spouse be properly served in China?
6. What statute of limitations applies?
7. And if Washington enters an order, where will it need to be enforced?

Change one fact and the answer can change.

Cross-border divorce rarely comes with simple answers. When property, people, and legal systems span two countries, experienced family law counsel can help identify the right questions early and make sure important rights are not lost along the way. The Family Law Practice Group at Lasher is here to help.

[1] Full citation to this case is Hua v. Yuan, 37 Wn. App.2d 1040, 2026 WL 1651143 (June 8, 2026).  It is available online at https://law.justia.com/cases/washington/court-of-appeals-division-i/2026/87796-8.html.