Case Update (19 Sept 2025): Mulaomerovic v. Mulaomerovic; Bosnian divorce proceeding did not preclude an Indiana divorce proceeding

The parties are a formerly married couple who are now divorced twice. They were first divorced in their home country of Bosnia in or around 2022, in a case that did not address (and made no mention of) the parties’ marital property. In early 2023, the Wife then filed for dissolution in Indiana and requested a division of their real property, located in Indiana. The Husband sought to dismiss her suit, citing to the existing Bosnian divorce proceeding and dissolution. The court dismissed the Indiana suit. However, later, Wife was successful in filing a motion to correct errors which allowed her to proceed. The Husband appeals the order that granted her motion to correct errors.

The Husband argues two key arguments as to why the Indiana divorce proceeding should not move forward. First, he argues res judicata. However, res judicata would only be appropriate if a court of competent jurisdiction rendered a judgment on the merits between the same parties, and the current issue was, or could have been, addressed in the prior action. The Indiana Court of Appeals concluded that the Bosnian court did not divide the parties’ marital property, and so it never made a decision on the merits as to the parties’ property.

The Husband secondly argues comity - that the Indiana court should respect the final judgment of the Bosnian court. However, comity is not mandatory, and when considering certain factors - delays in the first suit and the likelihood of inconsistent judgments - the court concluded that it need not recognize, as a matter of comity, the Bosnian action, paving the way forward to allow it to divorce the couple a second time to address their marital property rights.