dissenting:
I respectfully dissent.
Petitioner’s residence in Illinois at the time of the commencement of this action gave the circuit court subject matter jurisdiction to entertain the filing of a petition for dissolution of marriage under the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act (the Act) (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 40, par. 101 et seq.). The Act’s jurisdictional requirement that “one of the spouses was a resident of this State *** and the residence *** had been maintained for 90 days next preceding the commencement of the action or the making of the finding” (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 40, par. 401(a)) has been interpreted as requiring 90-day residency at the time of the court’s ultimate decision on the dissolution petition and as granting circuit courts’ jurisdiction to grant temporary relief where one of the spouses maintains a residence in Illinois at the commencement of the action. (In re Marriage of Mates (1987), 156 Ill. App. 3d 26, 28-29, 508 N.E.2d 1181, 1182-83.) The circuit court also had subject matter jurisdiction as to the child custody dispute pursuant to section 601 of the Act, which incorporates the UCCJA’s jurisdictional provisions, and section 4(a)(2) of the UCCJA (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 40, par. 2104). In addition, the circuit court acquired in personam jurisdiction over respondent because he was personally served in Illinois according to the required statutory procedure. In re Marriage of Pridemore (1986), 146 Ill. App. 3d 990, 497 N.E.2d 818.
Having subject matter jurisdiction as to all issues before it and personal jurisdiction over respondent, the next appropriate issue confronting the circuit court was the effect of the Italian court decree, which consisted of a separation agreement providing for custody, child support and maintenance. As to the decree’s custody provisions, the UCCJA’s recognition and enforcement provisions became operational. These provisions mandated recognition of the Italian custody decree if the Italian court had assumed jurisdiction under statutory provisions substantially in accordance with the UCCJA and if reasonable notice and opportunity to be heard were given all affected persons. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 40, pars. 2124, 2114.) While the UCC-JA’s jurisdictional provisions do not require personal jurisdiction but operate quasi in rem, the UCCJA sets forth provisions to encourage and assure that affected persons are given the opportunity to have their day in court. (In re Marriage of Schuham (1983), 120 Ill. App. 3d 339, 346, 458 N.E.2d 559, 563; Commissioners’ Prefatory Note, Unif. Child Custody Jurisdiction Act, 9 U.L.A. 114 (1979).) Petitioner’s complaint here sufficiently brought into question whether the Italian decree met these jurisdictional standards by alleging facts sufficient to support a finding that the agreement and Italian decree were procured by coercion and duress, thereby denying petitioner an opportunity to be heard. The circuit court, therefore, should have given petitioner an evidentiary hearing to determine whether she was afforded an opportunity to be heard in the Italian court.
In any event, the UCCJA’s mandatory recognition provisions did not require the dismissal of the dissolution of marriage petition, as it operates only with regard to custody determinations and not with regard to marital judgments or property division, maintenance and support matters. Furthermore, recognition of the Italian judgment under comity principles would be improper here because the judgment cannot be found to be res judicata as to the petition for dissolution of marriage filed in Illinois since it is not a divorce decree but merely a legal separation agreement.
Thus, the circuit court’s dismissal of the petition for dissolution of marriage and the petition for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction seeking temporary custody of the child should have been reversed.