based on the principle of comity, should recognize a divorce decree obtained in a foreign country when at least one of the parties was not a domiciliary of that country. “Comity” is defined as “the principle that courts of one state or jurisdiction will give effect to the laws and judicial decisions of another state or jurisdiction out of deference and mutual respect.” Metcalf v. Voluntary Employees’ Benefit Ass’n of Hawai'i, 99 Hawai'i 53, 58, 52 P.3d 823, 828 (2002) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). A United States court “may, but is not required to, recognize a divorce decree from a foreign country under the doctrine of comity.” Adams v. Adams, [177 Vt. 448] 869 A.2d 124, 127 (Vt.2005); see e.g., Yu v. Zhang, [175 Ohio App.3d 83] 885 N.E.2d 278, 284 (Ohio Ct.App.2008) (<HOLDING>); Jahed v. Acri, 468 F.3d 230, 235 (2006)
holding that a divorce obtained in a foreign country is recognized by comity 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 jurisdiction of the divorce court with regard to support and maintenance is statutorily determined unless otherwise provided by agreement incorporated into the divorce decree 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 holding that comity is an ohio courts recognition of a foreign divorce decree as a matter of courtesy