in this state, the conversion claim constituted an impermissible attempt by the appellant to enforce an undomesticated foreign judgment. This appeal followed. Held: The superior courts of this state clearly have subject matter jurisdiction to entertain conversion actions. See generally Art. VI, Sec. IV, Par. I, Ga. Const, of 1983. Assuming arguendo that the Florida contempt order could be directly enforced in this state pursuant to domestication proceedings instituted in accordance with OCGA § 9-12-130 et seq., it does not follow that the appellant was required to undertake such domestication proceedings as a condition precedent to bringing a conversion action in this state based on his alleged ownership of the property. Cf. Dunlap v. Pope, 177 Ga. App. 539 (339 SE2d 662) (1986) (<HOLDING>). The appellee’s reliance on Starling v.
holding that the trial judge had the power to incorporate a settlement agreement in a decree following the entry of a decree of divorce holding that the state courts are not divested of jurisdiction over trover or conversion actions in which the alleged trover or conversion results from the defendants retention of property awarded to the plaintiff in a final divorce decree holding that the trial court had authority to enforce a marital property settlement agreement that had not been incorporated into the parties final divorce decree recognizing a divorce decree which incorporates a property settlement agreement is a final and conclusive adjudication   holding that a wife obtained a vested interest in her portion of the retirement benefits as of the date of the divorce decree and any act of the military spouse that unilaterally decreases the nonmilitary spouses vested interest is an impermissible modification of a division of marital property and a violation of the final decree of divorce