Conn. Gen. Stat. » Title 46b — FAMILY LAW · Chapter 815j — Dissolution of Marriage, Legal Separation and Annulment
Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-70 (2026)

Foreign matrimonial judgment defined

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
As used in sections 46b-70 to 46b-75, inclusive, “foreign matrimonial judgment” means any judgment, decree or order of a court of any state in the United States in an action for divorce, legal separation, annulment or dissolution of marriage, for the custody, care, education, visitation, maintenance or support of children or for alimony, support or the disposition of property of the parties to an existing or terminated marriage, in which both parties have entered an appearance.

(P.A. 77-428, S. 1.)

Cited. 191 C. 92.

Cited. 1 CA 578; 3 CA 679; 6 CA 541; 30 CA 821; 33 CA 417; 42 CA 747. Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction under statute to modify a foreign matrimonial judgment obtained against defendant by default. 48 CA 645.

Cited. 39 CS 66; 41 CS 429.

(Return to Chapter
Table of Contents)		 (Return to
List of Chapters)		 (Return to
List of Titles)

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16 cases, 1983–2020 · leading case: Mirabal v. Mirabal, 622 A.2d 1037 (Conn. App. Ct. 1993).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Mirabal v. Mirabal, 622 A.2d 1037 (Conn. App. Ct. 1993). · cites it 13× “The plaintiff appeals from the trial court’s denial of his motion to open and modify by vacating a child support order entered as part of a 1986 California divorce that was filed pursuant to General Statutes § 46b-70 et seq. 1 The plaintiff claims that the trial court improperly…”
Rule v. Rule, 506 A.2d 1061 (Conn. App. Ct. 1986). · cites it 12× “The only issue raised by this appeal is whether the trial court erred in holding that the Massachusetts judgment was one in which the defendant had “entered an appearance,” as required by General Statutes § 46b-70. 1 The facts are not in dispute.”
Lindo v. Lindo, 710 A.2d 1387 (Conn. App. Ct. 1998). · cites it 19× “On April 3, 1996, the plaintiff filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to General Statutes § 46b-70. 4 The court, Munro, J.”
Morabito v. Wachsman, 463 A.2d 593 (Conn. 1983). · cites it 8× “10922 the plaintiff is appealing from the trial court’s refusal to enforce a 1972 Nevada child support arrearage judgment under Connecticut’s Enforcement of Foreign Matrimonial Judgments Act, General Statutes §§ 46b-70 through 46b-75.”
Colby v. Colby, 635 A.2d 1241 (Conn. App. Ct. 1994). · cites it 10× “The plaintiff, Cathy Colby, appeals from the trial court’s granting of the defendant’s 1 motion to modify the alimony ordered as part of a 1978 Massachusetts divorce decree that was filed in Connecticut pursuant to General Statutes § 46b-70 et seq. 2 The plaintiff claims that…”
Nielsen v. Nielsen, 491 A.2d 1112 (Conn. App. Ct. 1985). · cites it 2× “The wife also moved to dismiss on the ground that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to enforce the Florida judgment as a foreign matrimonial judgment pursuant to General Statutes § 46b-70. The court did not address that issue, and it is not before us.”
Van Wagner v. Van Wagner, 474 A.2d 110 (Conn. App. Ct. 1984). · cites it 8× “The plaintiffs action was brought pursuant to General Statutes § 46b-70 et seq. 1 *579 The facts are not in dispute.”
Monette v. Monette, 924 A.2d 894 (Conn. App. Ct. 2007). · cites it 4× “See General Statutes §§ 46b-70 and 46b71. For this reason, the court recognized, under the principle of comity, the parties' judgment of divorce, as part of the June 16, 2004 child support order, so that the order could be enforced in Connecticut.”
White v. White, 680 A.2d 1368 (Conn. App. Ct. 1996). · cites it 4× “On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court improperly (1) concluded that the plaintiff stated a claim under General Statutes § 46b-70, and (2) declined to consider the issue of the applicable statute of limitations in the defendant’s motion to strike.”
St. Hilaire v. St. Hilaire, 581 A.2d 752 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1990). · cites it 4× “2d 697 (1986), held that “[t]he purpose of General Statutes § 46b-70 and [§ 46b-71] is to prevent a defendant from avoiding the execution of a valid and enforceable judgment by fleeing *435 the jurisdiction.”
Fennelly v. Norton, 985 A.2d 1026 (Conn. 2010). · cites it 2× “In that case, the father of a minor child claimed that the trial court improperly awarded attorney’s fees to the child’s mother because the court already had dismissed, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the father’s motion to modify a foreign matrimonial judgment filed…”
In re Weissman, 524 A.2d 1141 (Conn. 1987). · cites it 2× “…In this respect, § 26C parallels a number of state statutes that give effect to foreign judgments. See, e.g., General Statutes §§ 46b-70 through 46b-75 (foreign matrimonial judgments); General Statutes §§ 46b-179 through 46b-179d (foreign paternity judgments); General…”
Show all 16 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.