Opinion ID: 2372843
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: the plaintiff properly sought enforcement of the 1972 nevada judgment

Text: The plaintiff seeks to enforce the 1972 Nevada judgment under Connecticut General Statutes §§ 46b-70 through 46b-75, the Enforcement of Foreign Matrimonial Judgments Act. [7] The defendant argues that the 1972 judgment cannot be enforced through the act because he did not appear in the 1971 divorce proceeding that resulted in the child support order. A threshold requirement for enforcement is that the judgment be one in which both parties have entered an appearance. [8] This language, which differs from other uniform enforcement of judgments acts, was added by amendment and indicates the legislature's concern that both parties have actual notice of the proceedings. [9] See 16 S. Proc., Pt. 9, 1973 Sess., p. 4052. A special appearance satisfies this concern. It is undisputed that the defendant did not appear in either the original 1971 proceedings or the later 1979 proceedings, but the defendant did enter an appearance through his attorney in the 1972 proceedings. While the defendant made only a special appearance in 1972 for the purpose of contesting jurisdiction, Connecticut's act does not distinguish between special and general appearances. Because the defendant entered an appearance in the 1972 Nevada proceedings, the 1972 judgment may properly be enforced under the Enforcement of Foreign Matrimonial Judgments Act.