## Facts

- Katina Estelle Dart and Robert Charles Dart married in 1980 and lived in Michigan until 1993, when they moved to England.
- The move facilitated Robert’s receipt of an extremely large distribution from a family trust; as part of the transfer, he renounced U.S. citizenship and relocated outside the United States.
- Katina did not renounce her or the children’s U.S. citizenship and maintained Michigan residency and domicile.
- Robert filed for divorce in England; Katina challenged jurisdiction but litigated the English case through trial with counsel.
- The English court entered a final divorce decree addressing support and property division, awarding Katina significant support and the Michigan home, while treating Robert’s inheritance as his separate property.
- Katina also filed a divorce action in Michigan; the Michigan circuit court asserted jurisdiction over the divorce and children but reserved property division.
- After the English decree, Robert sought dismissal of the Michigan action based on comity and res judicata; the circuit court denied dismissal.
- The Michigan Court of Appeals reversed, requiring recognition of the English judgment for financial issues but allowing child-custody issues to proceed in Michigan as the children’s home state.

## Issues

1. Whether Michigan courts should recognize and enforce the English divorce judgment under principles of comity.
2. Whether, once recognized, the English judgment has res judicata effect barring Katina’s Michigan action for additional property distribution and related financial relief.

## Decision

- The Michigan Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals.
- Michigan must recognize and enforce the English divorce judgment under comity because the English court had jurisdiction, decided the property issues on the merits, and Katina was not denied due process.
- Res judicata barred Katina from relitigating property and related financial issues in Michigan after the English merits judgment.
- Child-custody matters were not precluded to the extent Michigan had independent custody jurisdiction as the children’s home state.

## Legal Principles

- Michigan may recognize foreign-country divorce judgments under comity when the foreign court had jurisdiction, the proceedings were fundamentally fair, and recognition does not violate strong Michigan public policy.
- A party’s disagreement with a foreign court’s substantive marital-property approach, without a showing of unfair process, is insufficient to defeat comity.
- Where the foreign court provided notice, representation by counsel, and an opportunity to be heard, due process objections generally do not bar recognition.
- Once recognized, a foreign divorce judgment can have res judicata effect in Michigan, precluding later litigation between the same parties on the same property and financial claims already decided on the merits.
- Custody issues may remain litigable in Michigan when Michigan has separate statutory custody jurisdiction.

## Conclusion

Michigan enforced an English divorce decree under comity and applied res judicata to bar renewed Michigan litigation over property and financial relief, because the English proceedings were jurisdictionally valid and procedurally fair, while permitting custody issues to proceed where Michigan independently had home-state jurisdiction.


Dart v. Dart, 597 N.W.2d 82 (Mich. 1999)