(a) Any party to an action in which a foreign matrimonial judgment has been rendered, shall file, with a certified copy of the foreign matrimonial judgment, in the court in this state in which enforcement of such judgment is sought, a certification that such judgment is final, has not been modified, altered, amended, set aside or vacated and that the enforcement of such judgment has not been stayed or suspended, and such certificate shall set forth the full name and last-known address of the other party to such judgment and the name and address of the court in the foreign state which rendered such judgment.

(b) Such foreign matrimonial judgment shall become a judgment of the court of this state where it is filed and shall be enforced and otherwise treated in the same manner as a judgment of a court in this state; provided such foreign matrimonial judgment does not contravene the public policy of the state of Connecticut. A foreign matrimonial judgment so filed shall have the same effect and may be enforced or satisfied in the same manner as any like judgment of a court of this state and is subject to the same procedures for modifying, altering, amending, vacating, setting aside, staying or suspending said judgment as a judgment of a court of this state; provided, in modifying, altering, amending, setting aside, vacating, staying or suspending any such foreign matrimonial judgment in this state the substantive law of the foreign jurisdiction shall be controlling.

(P.A. 77-428, S. 2; P.A. 89-3.)

History: P.A. 89-3 amended Subsec. (a) to require the certificate to set forth the name and address of the court in the foreign state which rendered the judgment.

Cited. 189 C. 129; 191 C. 92.

Cited. 1 CA 578; 6 CA 541; 17 CA 544; 30 CA 821; 33 CA 417; 35 CA 246.

Construction of section that would confer the same personal jurisdiction of decree-rendering state upon Connecticut courts would violate fundamental due process and the minimum contacts standards. 41 CS 429.

Subsec. (b):

When modifying foreign matrimonial judgment, Connecticut trial court's failure to apply substantive law of the foreign jurisdiction constitutes plain error. 47 CA 146.