A petition for dissolution of marriage requests that a court resolve issues of property division, support and parenting matters. Believe it or not, an Illinois court can resolve one of those issues while leaving a court of another state or country to resolve the rest. Litigating separate parts of a divorce in different jurisdictions happens so rarely and is presumptively illogical that it’s presumed to be impermissible…but it definitely can and does happen. A Party That Files A Petition For Dissolution Of Marriage First Does Not Automatically Have Exclusive Jurisdiction It is often thought that the first person to file a Petition for Dissolution of Marriage determines the jurisdiction once and for all. This is the case for competing Petitions For Dissolution between different counties in Illinois. “The court which first acquires jurisdiction retains its jurisdiction to the exclusion of coordinate courts and courts of other counties must decline jurisdiction of the identical action.” In re Marriage of Alder, 424 NE 2d 763 – Ill: Appellate Court, 1st Dist. 1981 (citations omitted) (emphasis mine) The “first to file” rule is not controlling when there are competing petitions in different states or countries.“That one action is filed prior to the other…would not be determinative.” AE Staley Manufacturing Co. v. Swift & Co., 419 NE 2d 23 – Ill: Supreme Court 1980 When There Are Two Competing Petitions For Dissolution Of Marriage In Two Different States Or Countries It happens every day. One petition for dissolution of marriage is filed in Illinois. Another petition for dissolution of marriage is filed (either before or after the Illinois petition was filed) between the same parties in some other state or country. The party who filed the petition for dissolution OUTSIDE of Illinois will want to dismiss the Illinois petition for dissolution of marriage so they can proceed with their foreign petition exclusively. “Defendant may, within the time for pleading, file a motion for dismissal of the action [based on the fact t]hat there is another action pending between the same parties for the same cause.” 735 ILCS 5/2-619(a)(3) The Illinois case may or may not be dismissed after the Illinois judge performs the following analysis: “The factors that a court should consider in deciding whether a stay under section 2-619(a)(3) is warranted include: comity; the prevention of multiplicity, vexation, and harassment; the likelihood of obtaining complete relief in the foreign jurisdiction; and the res judicata effect of […]
