MIGRATORY DIVORCES: ” Foreign “migratory” divorces fall into four basic categories: (Nichols, Recognition and Enforcement: American Courts, Look at Foreign Divorces, 9 Family Advocate 9-10, 37 (1987).
— “Ex Parte” divorces, based on the petitioner’s physical presence in the foreign nation, with notice or constructive service given to the absent defendant;
— “Bilateral” divorces, based on the physical presence of both parties in the divorcing nation, or the physical presence of the petitioner and the voluntary “appearance” by the defendant through an attorney;
— “Void” divorces, where an ex parte divorce is obtained without notice, actual or constructive, to the absent defendant. Courts do not recognize or enforce this type of divorce;
— “Practical recognition” divorces, wherein practical recognition may be afforded such decrees because of estoppel, laches, unclean hands, or similar equitable doctrines under which the party attacking the decree may be effectively barred from securing a judgment of invalidity. 13 A.L.R. 3d 1419, 1452. Many jurisdictions will prohibit the spouse who consented to the divorce from attacking it later under a principle of fairness called “estoppel”. Thus, a party may be precluded from attacking a foreign divorce decree if such an attack would be inequitable under the circumstances. Scherer v. Scherer, 405 N.E. 2d 40, 44 (Ind. App. 1980), Rosenstiel v. Rosenstiel, 16 N.Y.2d 64, 209 N.E.2d 709, 262 N.Y.S.2d 86 (1965), and Yoder v. Yoder, 31 Conn.Supp. 345, 330 A.2d 825 (1974).