## Facts

- Wife, a non-Indian resident of Rhode Island, filed a divorce action in Connecticut state court in 1995.
- Husband was a member of the Mashantucket Pequot Indian Tribe and lived on the Mashantucket Pequot Reservation in Connecticut at the time of the Connecticut filing.
- Husband and Wife were married in Connecticut, outside Mashantucket Pequot land, under Connecticut law.
- The Connecticut Superior Court, Judicial District of New London, entered a judgment dissolving the marriage under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-44.
- After the Connecticut dissolution, Wife sought to have the Connecticut judgment enforced in the Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Court by requesting that it be adopted/registered as a tribal-court judgment under VI M.P.T.L. ch. 8 § 2(b).
- Husband opposed enforcement, arguing the Connecticut decree was invalid because neither spouse satisfied Connecticut’s 12-month residency requirement for divorce actions.
- Husband also argued that Connecticut lacked authority to dissolve a marriage involving a tribal member living on the Reservation.
- The Mashantucket Pequot Family Court adopted the Connecticut dissolution judgment.
- Husband appealed the adoption of the foreign judgment to the Mashantucket Pequot Court of Appeals.

## Issues

1. Are Mashantucket Pequot courts required to recognize state-court judgments under constitutional full faith and credit, or do they decide whether to adopt foreign judgments using comity?
2. Does adopting the Connecticut dissolution judgment violate Mashantucket Pequot public policy?
3. May the Family Court adopt a Connecticut dissolution judgment when the state court asserted divorce jurisdiction in a case involving a Reservation resident, including where the Husband claims Connecticut’s residency requirement was not met?

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals affirmed the Family Court.
- The court held that Mashantucket law evaluates adoption of foreign judgments under comity rather than constitutional full faith and credit.
- The court held the Connecticut dissolution judgment did not violate Mashantucket public policy.
- The court held the Family Court could adopt the Connecticut dissolution judgment, including where the dissolution involved a Reservation resident and the Husband’s jurisdictional attack did not show the Connecticut judgment was plainly void.

## Legal Principles

- Tribal-court recognition of state-court judgments is controlled by tribal law; absent a tribal directive, the U.S. Constitution’s Full Faith and Credit Clause does not bind tribal courts in the same manner it binds states.
- Under VI M.P.T.L. ch. 8 § 2(b), the Mashantucket Pequot courts assess whether to adopt a foreign judgment using comity.
- Comity permits recognition of a foreign judgment when the rendering court had jurisdiction, provided the proceedings satisfied basic due process and recognition does not conflict with fundamental tribal public policy.
- In comity review, the tribal court’s role is limited; it does not function as an appellate court correcting possible state-law errors unless the judgment is jurisdictionally void on its face or otherwise fails basic comity requirements.
- Under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-44, Connecticut’s 12-month requirement for entry of a dissolution decree may be satisfied by residence during the 12 months before filing or during the 12 months before the decree; a challenge that does not establish a clear jurisdictional defect does not block comity-based adoption.
- A Mashantucket Pequot court may adopt a state dissolution decree involving a tribal member who lives on the Reservation when comity standards are met.

## Conclusion

The Mashantucket Pequot Court of Appeals affirmed the Family Court’s adoption of a Connecticut divorce decree sought to be enforced in tribal court, holding that foreign-judgment adoption is decided under comity, that the Connecticut dissolution did not violate tribal public policy, and that the Husband’s residency-based jurisdiction challenge did not render the state judgment void so as to bar adoption.


Husband v. Wife, Mashantucket Pequot R. 1 (2003)