## I L L I N O I S 

## O F F I C I A L 

## RE P O R T S Appellate Court

In re Marriage of Ricard , 2012 IL App (1st) 111757

Appellate Court Caption In re MARRI AGE OF CL AUDE F. RI CARD, Petitioner-Appellant, and DANI EL L E M. SAHUT, Respondent-A ppellee.

District & N o. First District, Six th Division Docke t No. 1-11-1757

Filed August 10, 2012

Held (Note : Thi s syl lab us

con s t it ute s no par t of the opi nio n of the cour t but has bee n pre

par ed b y the Repo rt er of D e c i s i o n s f

o r t h e

c o n v e n i e n c e o

f t h e

rea der

. ) T h e public and private interest fac tors supported the trial court’s order
g ranting responde nt’s motion to dismiss petition e r ’ s d is s o lu tion action on g round of forum non conve niens wher e the evidenc e sho we d Fr ance would be a more convenie nt forum for the litigation and Fr ench law did not present a

dang er that petitioner would be tre ated unf airly

.

Dec ision Under Review Appea l from the Circuit C o u rt of Cook County
, No. 09-D-11083; the Hon. Thomas J. Kelley , J udg e, pre siding.

J udg ment Affir med.Counsel on

Appea l David I

. Grund, Marvin J

. L eavitt, I lene E. Shapiro, and David C. Adams, all of Grund & L eavitt, P.C., of Chicag o, for a ppellant.

Br y an V. Reed and Tania K. Har vey , both of Reed, Centrac chio & Associates, L L C, of Chicag o, for a ppellee.

Panel J USTI CE PAL MER delivered the judgme nt of the cour t, with opinion.
J ustices Gar cia a

nd L ampkin concur

red in the judgment and opinion.

OP INION

¶ 1 Petitioner Claude F. Ricard appea ls from a tr i al co u rt o rd er granting the motion of responden t Da n i el l e M. Sahut to dismiss his petition for dissoluti on of marria g e on the
g rounds of

forum non conve niens . We affir m.

¶ 2 BA CKGROUND ¶ 3 Claude is a 62-year -old Fr ench citizen who was born in Marse ille, Fr ance

. Claude owns proper ties around the world, including a house in Glencoe and a house in Winnetka, I llinois

. He curr ently resides in the house in Winnetka. Danielle is a 64-year -old Fr ench citizen who was born and resides in Lyon, Fr ance

. The parties met in Br azil in October 2006 and w ere lawfully marrie d in a civil cer emony in Aix en Provence
, Fr ance , on J une 21, 2008. They

wer e marrie d in a relig ious cer emony near Tag ion, Fr ance , on August 19, 2008. This was Claude’s third and Danielle’ s first marria g e. No children wer e born to the parties. Claude has
two children from his f

irst marriag e and D anielle ha s none. The parties did not enter into a
prema rital agree ment. ¶ 4 The parties separ ated in Ma y 2009. Claude filed a petition f or divorce in L

yon, Fr ance , on J une 17, 2009. In the petition, Claude repr esente d that he resided in Ai x en Provence
, Fr ance , and that Danielle resided in Lyon, Fr ance

. Danielle filed a separ ate and independe nt action for spousal support in Lyon, Fr ance, o n August 7, 2009. Claude’s divorce action in Fr ance was continued and the matter was set for November 3, 2009. The rec ord is silent on what tra nspired on that date

. ¶ 5 On Dec ember 3, 2009, Claude voluntarily dismiss ed his divorce action in Fr ance

. On the

same date, he filed a two-count “Petition for Dec laration of Invalidity of Marr iag e and Other Relief” in the circuit court of Cook County , I llinois

. The petiti on was filed pursuant to the I llinois Marriag e and Dissolution of Mar riag e Ac t (Marr iag e Ac t) (750 I L CS 5/ 101 et seq. (West 2008)). Claude alleg ed in the petition that he was induced into marria g e by fra ud. He cl ai m ed that Danielle lacke d the phy sical capa city to consummate the marria g e by sexual inte rc ourse and that at the time the marria g e was solemniz ed, he did not know of the

-2-incapa city

. See 750 I L CS 5/301(2) (West 2008). Claude soug ht that the marria g e be decla red invalid or, in the alternative, that he b e gra n ted a divorce from Danielle. Danielle was persona lly serve d with su mmons of Claude’s petition in Fr ance on J anuar y 19, 2010. She filed her appea ranc e in I llinois on Fe bruar y 18, 2010. ¶ 6 On April 16, 2010, Daniell e fi l ed a m o t i o n t o dismiss Claude’s petition for lack of jurisdiction and on the g rounds of forum non conve niens

. Danielle later amende d the motion, seeking dismiss al of Claude’s petition based on lack of subject-matter and persona l jurisdiction (count I ) and under the doctrine of forum non conve niens (count I I ). In count I I
, Danielle argued that Fr ance , rathe r than I llinois
, would be a more co nvenient forum to resolve this litigation. ¶ 7 On May 3, 2010, the court in Lyon, Fr ance , enter ed a final ju d gm en t i n Da nielle’s spousal support action, awa rding her €5,000 (about $7,200) per month i n support. Claude
appea led from that judgment in Fra nce. T hat appe al was pe nding at the time the trial court
enter ed the or der a

ppeale d from in this case. ¶ 8 On August 10, 2010, Claude filed a motion for partial summary judgme nt on Danielle’ s amende d motion to dismiss
, arguing that the court had subject-matter jurisdiction to hear the

case and persona l jurisdiction over Danielle. After hearing arg ument, the co u rt granted Cl a u d e ’ s mo tion for partial summary judgme nt, finding that the court had both subje c t- ma tt e r and persona l jurisdiction. The court rese rved rulin g on the issue offorum non conve niens until further brie fingby

the par ties and an e videntiary

hearing. ¶ 9 The parties co n du ct ed discovery on the issue of forum non conve niens and a six -day evidentiar y hear i n g was held on Fe bruar y 22 throug h Fe bruar

y 25, May 23 and May 26, 2011. On t he last date of the hearing
, Danielle repre sented to the court that she had filed a divorce action in Lyon, Fr ance , on or about May 18, 2011. ¶ 10 At the hear ing
, th e court hear d testimony from Danielle and Claude. Both parties r equire d the servic es of a

n interpre ter duringthe hea ring

. ¶ 11 Danielle testified that she was born and raised in Fr ance and, except for limit ed periods of time, has resided in Fr ance her entire life. She curr ently lives in a two-bedr oom residenc e in Lyon, Fr ance , that she inherited from her mother. S h e h as resided there since 1974. Danielle is a Fr ench citizen and only has a Fr ench passport. She said she does not speak, rea d

or write Eng lish. She exp l ai n ed that she relies on an interpre ter to communicate with her attorney

. Danielle acknow ledg ed that she has corr esponded in E ng lish via e-ma il. She also acknow ledg ed that she was able to translate some leg al documents using a translating Web site. Danielle sa id she spent about €4,000 on tra nslator fe es duringthe proc eeding

. ¶ 12 Danielle testified that she retire d from a nursing car eer eight months befor e the par ties’

m arriag e. Danielle rec eives retire ment income of €309 a month in addition to her s p o u s al support. She has €12,000 in sa vings and a life insurance annuity of €40,000. Danielle does
not conduct business in the United S t at es of Americ a. She also does not own proper ty or have f amily in the United States. ¶ 13 Danielle tes t i fi ed that the parties wer e married in Fr ance beca use t hey are both Fre nch citize n s , h av e friends in Fr ance and Claude’s two sons wer e in Fr ance

. Danielle said that afte r the June 21, 2008, civil c ere mony , Claude moved into her house in Lyon, Fr ance . On

-3-the s ame date, t he parties applied for a United States perma nent resident car d (gree n car d) by completing and signing an application for immigra nt visa and alien reg istration. Danielle acknow ledg ed that on the application she listed Claude’s Glencoe home as her intended
perma nent address in the Unit ed S tates. S he denied that she i n t en d ed to live in the Unit ed States. ¶ 14 During the parties’ seven- month marria g e, Danielle visited I llinois with Claude on three

occa sions: about J uly 1, 2008, to J uly 2 0
, 2008; about August 21, 2008, to September 15, 2008; and about October 9, 2008, to Nove mber 23, 2008. On each occasion, C laude made the trave l arr ang ements and paid for all trave l expenses. Danielle also visited I llinois befor e the parties’ marria g e but sta yed no longe r than six wee ks at a time. Aside from trave ling to I llinois for this litigation, Danielle has not been in the United States since November 2008. ¶ 15 Danielle rec eived her g ree n car d in October 2008. She denied reg istering as a per manent resident of

the United States with the Frenc h consulate in Chicag o. She also denied listing Claude’s Winnetk a h o me as her residenc e with the Fr ench consulate. Danielle was impeache d with a ce rtified copy of a “Certific ate of Reg istration on the Reg istry of F renc h Citi zens L ocate d Outside of Franc e and of Residence ” that re flec ted Danie lle’s per manent residenc e to be Claude’s house in Winnetka. Danielle acknow ledg ed that she has not taken action to ca

ncel or void her gree n car d. ¶ 16 Danielle t es t i fi ed that she intended to call her primary phy sician and g y necolog ist as witnesses to rebut Claude’s alleg ati o n s t h at she was phy sically unable to consummate the marria g e. Both phy sicians are in Lyon, Fr ance

. Danielle said she also i n t ended to call Claude’s proper

ty manag er and Claude’s two acc ountants as witnesses. All three witnesses reside in Fr ance

. Danielle ide ntified a Ms. DuPont as another possible witnesses. Ms. Dupont is an acc ountant residing in Fr an ce wh o evaluated Claude’s income in Danielle’ s spousal support action filed in Lyon, Fr ance

. Danielle identified about eight other potential witnesses that may need to testify in support of her maintenanc e claim or ag ainst Claude’s alleg ations. All eight witnesses reside in or around Lyon, Fr ance

. Danielle’ s counsel stipulated that these witnesses we re not include d in Danielle’ s answer s to Claude’s interrog atories. ¶ 17 Danielle testified that trave ling to Chicag o for court proce eding s would be a hardship for her. She said that she was struck by a ca r on F ebrua

ry 25, 2011, and injured he r ankle. She

was g iven emer g ency car e in Chicag o and treated in Fr ance for three broken bones. The
treatment included surg ery , insertion of scre ws and about five months of phy sical thera py in Fr ance

. Danielle’ s trea

ting phy sicians are in Fr ance

. Danielle explained that she must ke ep her leg elevated to preve nt swelling and that this posed a problem du ri n g h er most rec ent flig ht to the United States. She acknow ledg ed t h at s h e was able to take pain medication befor e her

flig ht to control the swellingand pain. ¶ 18 Danielle also testified that litigating the case in Chicag o would be a financ ial burden f or her. She rec ounted her financ es and the expenses she incurre d in liti g atingthis matter. She acknow ledg ed that if the court order ed Claude to pay her trave l expenses this burden would be lifted. ¶ 19 Claude testified that he was born, raised and educated in F ranc e. He is a Fr ench c itiz en and has only a Fr ench passport. He said that he has been marrie d twice befor e and filed for

-4-his second divorce in Cook County

. That action was by agree ment re filed in Fr ance and

fin al i z ed t h er e. Claude has two children from his first marria g e. One child lives in Lyon, Fr ance , and the other in Br azil. Claude has a g randc hild who lives in Lyon, Fr ance

. Claude’s mother also lives in Fr ance

. He trave ls to Fr ance to visit his mother one to two times a y ear

. Claude spent about four months in Fr ance in 2009 and about two months in Fr ance in 2010. Claude has no f

amily in the United States. ¶ 20 Claude started a succe ssful business in Fr ance an d m o v ed to I llinois in 1995 or 1996. Be fore rec eiving his gree n card in 2008, he maintained the status of an E-2 investor and held

an E-2 nonimmigra

nt investor visa card, wh ich allows fore ign entre prene urs to car ry out business in the United States. Claude established and conducte d sever al businesses in I llinois

. Claude said that he has filed both fede ral and I llinois income-tax returns as an I llinois resident. The tax returns are prepa red by his acc ountant in Northbrook. ¶ 21 Claude sold his I llinois business interests in 2007 and i s cu rr ently retire d. He r ece ives €70,000 a y ear in retire ment income from Fr ance

. He also rec eives about €100,000 a y ear of
renta l income from pr operties he owns in Fra nce. H e maintains a F renc h bank ac count. ¶ 22 C l au de owns proper ties around the world, including the two in I llinois

. Th e h o u s e i n Glencoe is curr ently listed for sale and the house in Winnetka is his primary residenc e. The
proper ties are worth $5 milli on and $7 milli on respe ctively

. Claude also owns multipl e renta l
proper ties in Lyon, Fr ance , and derive s much of his income from those proper ties. Claude’s
proper ty manag er resides in Lyon, Fr ance

. Claude also has a 50% owner ship interest in a house in Perpignan, Fr ance

. He purcha sed the house with a friend for €550,000. The house

was purcha sed during the parties’ marria g e. Claude als o owns an apar tment in Br azil. In 2010, Claude sold proper ty in Aix en Provence
, Fr ance , for about €3 milli on. Claude’s disclosure statement rela

tive to his divorce from his second wife listed his gross assets as of J une 2007 in excess of $10 million. He splits hi s time betwee n I llinois , Fr ance and B razil. ¶ 23 Claude met Danielle in Br azil in October 2006 and they wer e lawfully marrie d on J une 21, 2008. Claude testified that afte r their civil marria g e cer emony , the parties trave led to the United States on J uly 1, 2008, beca use they planned to live there

. He said Danielle reg istered with the Fr enc h consulate in Chicag o upon their arr ival in Chicag o and provided the consulate with the addre ss of Claude’s house in Winnetka. Claude testified that on J uly 21, 2008, the par

ties trave led t o Fr ance for the August 19, 2008, relig ious weddingcer emony

. On August 21, 2008, the parties re turned to the United States. ¶ 24 In ear ly October 2008, the par ties travele d to Fra

nce to r etrieve their gree n car ds at t he Americ an emba ssy

in Paris. They

returne d to the Unit ed S tates on Oc tober 9, 2008, whe re the parties g ave their gree n cards to an immigration officia l at the airport who reg istered them as per

manent re sidents of the United States. ¶ 25 Claude testified that on November 23, 2 0 0 8
, t h e p ar t i es t raveled to Br azil. C laude
returne d to the United States on J anuar y 15, 2009. He said Danielle did not acc ompany him beca use she had decide d she did not like th e Un i t ed States and ref used to return there

. Danielle r emained in B razil until she trave led to Fr ance in March 2009. ¶ 26 Claude testified that he has had hear t tr ouble for the past 15 y ear s and that it is diff icult fo r him to trave l long distances. He rec ounted that he has had multipl e blockag es, hea rt

-5-attacks and surg erie s since about 1996. He said his most rec ent hear t attack was in January 2011. At that time, he was hospitaliz ed at Evanston Hospital in I llinois

. Claude has treating phy sicians in Chicag o, Paris and Aix en Provence

. He said he trave ls to Br azil periodica lly for alternative healing treatments. He explained that one of the rea sons he dism i s s ed his divorce action in Fr ance was due to his health problems. He acknow ledg ed that Danielle had reje cted a settlement agree ment they had neg otiated in Fr ance

. That settl em en t agr eeme nt would have se rved a s a pre dicate f or the F renc h divorce

. ¶ 27 Claude said that he was willing to pay for Danielle’ s ex p en s es t o l i t i gat e the case in I llinois

. He explained that he had sufficie nt assets to pay for her and her witnesses to trave l
to I llinois and testify

. He also said he would be willing to pay for translation of all nece ssary documents. ¶ 28 Mary Weiland testified that she had been a house and pet sitter for Claude for about three
y ear s. Weiland said that she interac ted with Danielle on a daily basis when Danielle lived in Claude’s Gle ncoe r esidenc e. Weiland said that she a lway s communicated with Danielle in Eng lish and that she found Danielle’ s spoken Eng lish easie r to understand t h an Claude’s spoken E n g li s h

. We il a

n d e xplained that the only difficulty she observe d Danielle having with the Eng lish langua g e is that she occ asionally had to re fer

to a dictionary

. ¶ 29 After the hear ing, the court hear d closing argument from the parties. Danielle argued that the evidenc e prese nted favor ed transfe r to Fr ance on the g rounds of forum non conve niens

. Claude argued that the court did no t h ave the authority to g rant an interstate forum non

conve niens motion wher e one of the parties resides outside of the United States. He claimed that under section 104 of the Marr iag e Act (750 I L CS 5/104 (West 2008) ), venue “shall be had in the county wher e the plaintiff or defe ndant resides.” He maintained that the Marr iag e Act did not authorize the international application of the doctrine of forum non conve niens

. The c ourt defe rre d rulingon the motion to review the e vidence

. ¶ 30 Be fore the court ruled on the motion, C l au d e fi l ed a p et i t i o n for decla ratory relief
, arguing that Supreme Cour t Ru l e 1 8 7 (I ll. S. Ct. R. 187 (ef f. Aug. 1, 1986)), as applied to this case , is unconstitutional. Rule 187 allows a party to an action to file a motion to transfe r

or dismiss the action under the doctrine of forum non conve niens

. He claimed that if the action wer e transfe rre d to Fr ance or dismiss ed it would thwart and violate his substantive due
proce ss rig ht to obtain a reme dy as guara nteed by both the state and f

eder al constitutions. ¶ 31 On J une 20, 2011, the trial court enter ed a written order g ranting Danielle’ s motion and dismiss i n g C l au d e’s petition under the conditions provided in Rule 187(c) (2). The court made the following finding s in the order

. First, the court foun d t h at Claude’s choice of forum, I llinois
, was entitled to substantial defe renc e beca use he owns two houses in I llinois and claims his primary residenc e is in I llinois

. Second, the court found that, despite having
g iven substantial defe renc e to Claude’s choice of forum, under the fac ts of this case the private and public interest fac tors favor ed dism i s s al fo r forum non conve niens

. Third, the
court found that it had the authority to grant Danielle’ s interstate forum non conve niens motion base d on the appellate court’s decision in In re Marriage of Clark
, 232 I ll. App. 3d 342 (1992) (af

firming the circ uit court’s order granting wife’ s motion to dismiss husband’s petition for dissoluti on of marria g e on the g rounds of forum non conve niens and transfe rring

-6-the divorce action to the State of Massac husetts). Finally
, the court denied Claude’s petition

for declar atory relief

, finding that hi s co n s t i tu t ional rig ht to obtain a remedy would not be violated if Danielle’ s mo t i o n we re g rante d beca use Claude can still obtain his primary

reme dy and be a war ded a divor ce in F ranc e. Claude a ppeals.

¶ 32 ANALYSI S ¶ 33 Claude first contends on appea l that the trial court err ed as a matter of law and exceede d its authority when it dismiss ed his petition on the g rounds of forum non conve niens pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 187. He argues that under section 105(a) of the Marr iag e Act, divorce actions are g overne d by article I I of the Code of Civil Procedur e (Code), also known as the Civil Practice L aw. See 7 5 0 I L C S 5 /105(a) (West 2008) (“The provisions of the Civil Practice L aw shall apply to a ll pr ocee dings under this Act, except as otherwise provided in this Act.”)

. He claims that beca use the Marr iag e Act does not specific ally incorpora te article I of the Code, entitled “Ge nera l Provisions,” those provisions, including the supreme court’s authority to enac t rules, such as Rule 187, for the administration and enfor ceme nt of the Civil Practice L aw, are inapplicable to proce eding s under the Marr iag e Act. Claude thus maintains that Rule 187 and the doctrine off o r um non conve niens ref

ere nced therein are supersede d by the Marr iag e Act, wh i ch outlines the criter ia for a matrimonial litigant to invoke the court’s jurisdiction in a div o rc e p roce eding
, and that he satisfied those criter ia. He asser ts t h at when the trial court “improper ly invoked” the doctrine of forum non conve n i en s an d declined jurisdiction over the proce eding
, the court defe ated the rol e o f t h e l eg islature to

cre ate a statutory cause of ac tion for divorce under the Marr iag e Ac t. ¶ 34 Although Claude raises a novel ar gument for this court’s consideration, in doing so he igno re s the structure of the Code. The Code beg ins with article I
, “Ge nera l Provisions.” Section 1-101, entitled “Short ti t l es , ” p ro vides that “[t] his Act shall be known” as the “ ‘Code of Civil Procedur e.’ ” 7 3 5 I L CS 5/1-101(a) (West 2008). Section 1-105, entitled “Enfor ceme nt of Act and rules,” provides that the “Supreme Court may provide by rule for the order ly and expeditious administration and enfor ceme nt of this Act.” 735 I L CS 5/1-105 (West 2008). Acc ording ly
, these g ener al provisions, i n cluding section 1-105 which
empower s o u r supreme court to enac t rules for the administration of the Code, are specific ally applicable to all article s of the Code, including article I I
, the Civil Practice L aw. There fore
, by incorpora

ting the Civil Practice L aw, the Marr iag e Act also necessarily incorpora tes the g ener al provisions of the Code, whic h serve an administrative f unction. ¶ 35 To otherwise interpre t the Marr iag e Act, as pointed out by Danielle, would cre ate a bsurd results. Name l y , numerous other supreme court rules in addition to Rule 187 would be inapplicable to divorce actions under the Marr iag e Act. These include but are not limit ed to Rule 137, which g overns sa nctions (I ll. S. C t. R. 137 (ef f. F eb. 1, 1994)) ; Rule 213, which
g overns interrog atories (I l l

. S

. Ct. R. 213 (ef f. J an. 1, 2007)); Rule 214, which g overns document production (I ll. S. Ct. R. 214 (ef f. J an. 1, 1 9 96)); and Rule 216, which g overns reque sts to admit (I ll. S. C t. R. 216 (ef f. J an. 1, 2011)). Obviously , this is nota conc lusion

we are willing to rea ch nor is it one we believe the leg islature intended. See Solon v. Midwest Medic al Rec ord

s Ass’n
, 236 I ll. 2d 433, 441 (2010) (a revie wing court may consider the

-7-conseque nces that would result from construing a statute one way or the other, while

presuming that the leg islature did not intend absurd, inconvenient or unjust conseque nces)

. Simpl y stated, the mere fac t that the Marr iag e Act provides that jurisdiction a nd venue in a plaintiff’s chosen forum may be proper , does not lead to the conclusion that the matter may not be transfe rre d in acc ordanc e with the rules to another forum wher e jurisdiction also lies. ¶ 36 At oral argument, Claude retre ated s o m ew h at fr o m t h i s ar gu ment and raised the alternative novel arg

ument that a

forum non conve niens motion is not a proce eding under the Marr iag e Act. Contrary to Claude’s argument, this court has long considere d the doctrine of forum non conve niens to appropr iately apply to a dis solution of m arr iag e action. See In re Marriage ofMather
, 408 I ll. App. 3d 853 (2011) (holding that Du Pag e County rathe r than Cook County was the more appropr iate forum for a divorce action and aff irming the circ uit court’s dismiss al of husband’s petition for dissoluti on of marria g e on the g rounds of forum

non conve niens ); Clark
, 232 I ll. App. 3d 342 (af firming the circu i t court’s order g ranting wife’ s motion to dismiss husband’s pet i t i o n for dissoluti on of marria g e on the g rounds of forum non conve niens and transfe rring the divorce action to the State of Massac husetts); In re Marriage of K

elso , 173 I ll. App. 3d 746 (1988) (r ever sing c ircuit court’ s order g ranting responde nt’s motion to quash service of proce ss based on lack of p er s o nal jurisdiction beca use responde nt subjected herse lf to the jurisdiction o f the court in dissoluti on of marria g e proce eding by filing a motion to dismiss the proce eding on g rounds of forum non

conve niens ). ¶ 37 We see no re as o n h er e t o depar t from this line of rea soning or embra ce the nar row definition of proce eding proposed by Claude. Rather, a “proc eeding ” includes “[t] he regular and order ly progression of a lawsuit, including all acts and events betwee n the time of

commence ment and the entry of judgme nt” and “[a]ny proce dural means for seeking redr ess from a tribunal or ag ency .” Bla ck’s L aw Dictionary 1324 (9th ed. 2009). This lawsuit, which

was entitled “

In re the Marriag e of Claude Ricard and Danielle Sahut,” No. 09 D 11083, was a proc eedingunder the Marr iag e Ac t and the hearing on the forum non conve niens motion
was pa rt of that proc eeding

. ¶ 38 In finding that the doctrine of forum non conve niens applies to divorce actions, we r ejec t Claude’s argument that the trial court exceede d its authority in dismiss ing his pet i t ion by applying the doctrine internationally

. In considering this argument, we first note that Claude cites, and we have found, no leg al authority to support his position. See First National Bank of LaGrange v. Lowrey
, 375 I ll. App. 3d 181, 208 (2007) (appe llant has a du t y to clea rly define issues on appea l, cite pertinent authority and prese nt a cohesive leg al argument). This court need not consider arguments unsupported by citation to leg al authority

. See Lowrey
, 375 I ll. App. 3d at 208-09. ¶ 39 Even ignoring the lack of leg al authority
, we note that neither the doctrine nor Rule 187 excludes the possibili ty that an action may be more convenie nt in an international forum. The d o ctrine “pre supposes the exis tence of more than one forum in which jurisdiction may b e obtained over the parties and the subject matter of a case and in which the controve rsy may be tried.” Stonnell v. International Harve ster Co.
, 132 I ll. App. 3d 1043, 1044 (1985) (citing W i es er v. Mi s s o uri Pacific R.R. Co.
, 98 I ll. 2d 359, 364 (1983))

. The doctrine does not specify that the alternate forum must be domestic. Rather, the alternative forum is proper if

-8-it has “ ‘powe r to hear the case ’ and ‘grant relief .’ ” Stonnell
, 1 32 I ll. App. 3d at 1044 (quoting Espinosa v. Norfolk & W estern Ry. Co.
, 86 I ll. 2d 111, 117 (1981))

. Simi larly
, Rule 187 authorizes the dismiss al of an action to “anothe r fo ru m ,” without specify ing that the other for um must be domestic. See I ll. S. C t. R. 187(c)(2) (ef f. Aug . 1, 1986). ¶ 40 Although admittedly trial courts do not have fre quent occa sion to consider an alter native international forum with reg ard to divorce actions, such forums are routinely considere d by
courts in commerc ial and product liability case s. See, for example, Vivas v. The Boeing Co.
, 392 I ll. App. 3d 644 (2009) (af firming the trial court’s denial of d ef en d an t ’s f

orum non

conve niens motion seeking to transfe r t he ca se to the Republic of Per u, wher e the airplane

cra sh g iving rise to the litigation occ urre d); W oodward v

. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc.
, 368 I ll. App. 3d 827 (2006) (affirming the trial court’s denial of defe ndant’s forum non

conve niens motion seekingto transfe r a product li ability action to Australia, where the ca r

acc ident occur

red)

. We note that while in eac h of these case s transfe r was denied, it was done

so on the m erits of the forum non conve niens motion and not due to the lack of the cour t’s authority to t ra n s fe r t he matter internationally

. We see no rea son to make a distinction betwee n these c ases a

nd divorce actions for

purposes of

forum non conve niens

. ¶ 41 There is no question here that the Fren ch co u rt i s capable of adjudicatingClaude’s divorce action. The rec ord shows that it has done so twice befor e. For um selec tion and choice -of- law clause s may n o t be circ umvented mere ly beca use fore ign law or proce dure might be differ ent or less favor able. Philips Electronics N.V. v

. New H ampshire Insurance Co.
, 312 I ll. App. 3d 1070, 1084-85 (2000). Acc ording ly
, we decline Claude’s invitation to limit domestically the application of the doctrine of forum non conve niens in dissoluti on of marria g e proc eeding s. ¶ 42 Having found that the trial court di d n o t ex ce ed i t s authority in dismiss ing Claude ’s petition on the g rounds of forum non conve niens , we next consider Claude’s argument that the trial cour

t abused its discretion in doingso. ¶ 43 Forum non co n ve n i en s i s an “ ‘e qu i t ab l e d o ctrine founded in considerations of fundame ntal fairne ss and the sensible and eff ective administration of

justice.’ ” Mather
, 408 I ll. App. 3d at 857 (quoting Langenhorst v. Norfolk Southern Ry. Co. , 219 I ll. 2d 430, 441 (2006)) ; Gridley v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.
, 217 I ll

. 2 d 158, 169 (2005). This doctrine allows a trial court to transfe r a case when a “trial i n another forum ‘would better serve the ends of j ustice.’ ” Langenhorst
, 219 I ll. 2d at 4 4 1 (quoting Vinson v. Allstate , 144 I ll. 2d 306, 310 (1991)); Mather , 408 I ll. App. 3d at 857. ¶ 44 The burden is on the party seeking dismiss al, in this case Da n i el l e, t o s h o w t hat the rele vant factors “ ‘strong ly favor ’ ” transfe r. (Emphasis omitted.) Langenhorst
, 219 I ll. 2d
at 442 (quoting Griffith v. Mitsubishi Aircraft Internati o n a l

, Inc.
, 136 I ll. 2d 101, 108 (1990)) ; Vivas
, 392 I ll. App. 3d at 656 (in product liability and neg lige nce case wher e airplane cra sh was in t he Republic of Peru with primarily Peruvian decede nts, burden was

on defe ndants to show fac tors strong ly favor ing transfe r to Peru); First American Bank v. Guerine
, 198 I l l

. 2d 511, 517 (2002) (plaintiffs have a substantial interest in choosing a forum wher e their rig hts will be vindicated
, and plaintiffs’ forum choice should rar ely be disturbed unless other fac tors strong l y fa vor transfe r. The defe ndant must show that the

-9-plaintiff’s chosen fo ru m i s inconvenient to the defe ndant and another forum is more

convenie nt to all parties.). ¶ 45 “ ‘A trial court is a ffor ded considera ble discretion in ruling on a forum non conve niens

m otion.’ ” Mather
, 408 I ll. App. 3d at 857 (quoting Langenhorst
, 219 I ll. 2d at 44 1 ). T h i s court will reve rse a ci rcuit court’s decision on a forum non conve niens motion only if the defe ndants show that the c o urt abused its discretion in balanc ing the rele vant fac tors. Mather
, 408 I ll. App. 3d at 857-58; Langenhors t , 2 19 I ll. 2d at 442. “A circ uit court abuses its discretion in balanc ing the rele vant fac tors only wher e no rea sonable person would take the view adopted by the circ uit court.” Langenhorst
, 219 I ll. 2d at 442. The issue befor e us is not what decision we would have rea ched if we wer e revie wing the fac ts on a clea n slate but whether the trial court acte d in a way that no rea sonable person would. Mather
, 408 I ll. App. 3d at 858; Vivas , 392 I ll. App. 3d at 657. ¶ 46 Her e, we fi n d th at a rea sonable person could have taken the view adopted by the trial
court. Gene rally
, a plaintiff’s choice of forum will preva il if the venue is proper and the inconvenienc e factors attached to the chosen forum do not g reatly outweigh the pl aintiff’s substantial rig ht to try the case in the chosen forum. Guerine
, 198 I ll. 2d at 520 (citing Peile

v. Skelgas, Inc.
, 163 I ll. 2d 323, 335-36 (1994))

. Be fore weighing these fac tors, the trial court must first deter

mine how much defe renc e to g ive to the plaintiff’s choice of forum. Mather
, 408 I ll. App. 3d at 858. I f the plaintiff chooses a forum other than wher e h e re sides, his choice is not entitled to the same defe renc e as the choice of his home forum. Mather
, 408 I ll. Ap p

. 3 d at 858; Vivas
, 392 I ll. App. 3d at 657. Her e, beca use Claude has a residenc e in I llinois and claims it to be his primary residenc e, his selec tion of forum deser ved substantial defe renc e. As a result, the trial court rea sonably acc orded substantial defe renc e to his choice of for um. ¶ 47 Ne x t , the trial court had to consider both the private and public in t er es t fa ct o rs i n deciding a forum non conve niens motion without emphasizing any one fac tor. Mather
, 408 I ll. App. 3d at 862; Vivas
, 392 I ll. App. 3d at 658. The private interest fac tors include: “ ‘(1) the convenie nce of the parties; (2) the relative ease of acc ess to source s of tes t imonial, documentar

y , and rea l evidenc e; and (3) all other prac tical problems that make trial of a case easy , expeditious
, and inexpensive.’ ” Langenhorst
, 219 I ll. 2d at 443 (quoting Guerine
, 198 I l l

. 2 d at 516). “ ‘A defe ndant seeking transfe r is not require d to show that the plaintif f’ s choice of forum is inc onvenient; rathe r, transfe r is allowed wher e defe ndant’s choice is the substantially more appropriate forum.’ ” Mather
, 408 I ll. App. 3d at 859 (quoting Czarnecki v. Uno- Ven Co. , 339 I ll. App. 3d 504, 508 (2003))

. After the cour t considers the totality

of the circ u mstances, if a defe ndant proves that the balanc e of circ umstances strong ly favor s transfe r, her

motion shoul d be grante d. Mather , 408 I ll. App. 3d at 859. ¶ 48 First, the convenie nce of the parties here weighs in favor of transfe r to Fr ance

. Danielle has shown that Claude’s chosen forum is inconvenient for her. See Langenhorst
, 219 I ll. 2d
at 450 (“the defe ndant must show t h at the plaintiff’s chosen forum is inconvenient to the defe ndant”)

. Danielle curr ently resides in Lyon, Fr ance

. Ex cept for limit ed periods of time, she has resided in Lyon, Fr ance , her entire life. She is a Fr ench citizen and only has a Fr ench passport. She has not resided in the United States since November 2008. She does not own proper ty in the United States and has no family residing in I llinois

. The rec ord shows she was

-10-not residingin I llinois when Claude filed his petition for dissolution of marriag e.

¶ 49 Contrary to Claude’s argument, the trial court found that Danielle is not fluent in E ng lish and required the aid of a

n interpre ter during hearing s. She is curr ently retire d and rece ives

a limit ed income of €309 per month in addition to spousal support. She has liquid assets of only €12,000. I f the case proce eded in Cook County , the financ ial burden of defe nding the

case would be g reat on Danielle. Although Claude agree d to reimburse Danielle for her trave l
expenses, it is difficult to measure the nonfinanc ial inconvenienc e to Daniel l e associated with litigating a case in a fore ign country , i.e. , the inconvenienc e of trave l, the time spent

awa y from home and the anxiety of defe ndin g an action in a fore ign- languag e-spe aking country

. Additionally
, the proce ss of arr ang ing for reimburse ment or even advanc e pay ment for suc h expenses would inevitably add anothe r layer of

litigation over

those expenses. ¶ 50 On the other hand, Claude’s inconve nience in liti g atingthis matter in Fra nce w ould be substantially less than Danielle’ s inconvenienc e if th e ma tt e r w e r e li tig ated in I llinois

. Claude is a Fr ench citizen and is fluent in Fr ench. He is a retire d multim illionaire and owns multipl e proper ties in Lyon, Fr ance

. Claude has family in Fr ance an d trave ls to Fr ance regularly to visit them. Although Claude said that it is difficult for him to trave l long distances beca use of his hear

t condition, the rec ord s h o ws t hat he split his time in three differ ent countries during the last three y ear s. He spent at least four months in Fr ance in 2009 and at least two months in Fr ance in 2010. Claude also said that he has treating phy sicians in Paris a nd Aix en P rovenc e, Fr an ce. Ba sed on this evidenc e, we believe that Fr ance is a more convenie nt forum for both parties. ¶ 51 Second, the relative ease of acc ess to source s of testimonial, d o cu m en t ar y an d rea l evidenc e weighs in favor of transfe r to Fr ance

. Claude did not testify to or identify additional witnesse s h e in

ten d e d to p r e s e nt. Danielle, howeve r, testified to numerous witnesses that may need to testify in support of her maintenanc e claim or with reg ard to Claude’s alleg ati o ns ag ainst her. These witnesses include Claude’s proper ty manag er and Claude’s two

acc ountants. All thr ee witnesses reside in F ranc e. Danielle also identified a Ms. DuPont as another possible witnesses. Ms. Dupont is an acc ountant who evaluated Claude’s income in Danielle’ s spousal support action filed in Lyon, Fr ance

. Ms. DuPont also resides in Fr ance

. Danielle f urther te stified that she wanted to c all her pr imary phy sician and gy

necolog ist as witnesses to re b u t C l aude’ s alleg ations that she was phy sically unable to consummate the marria g e. Both o f t h es e witnesses reside in Fr ance

. Assuming all of these witnesses are willing to appea

r (see Vivas
, 392 I ll. App. 3d at 659 (if the case rema ins in I llinois
, witnesses in Fr ance are not compelled to appea r in the United States)), the additional cost and difficulty of obt aining their attendance in I lli n ois strong ly favor s transfe r t o Fr ance

. Mather
, 408 I ll. App. 3d at 860. ¶ 52 Contrary to Claude’s argum en t , we need not overlook the fac t that most of Da nielle’s potential witnesses reside in Fr ance beca use she did not identify them at the outset of the case in her a nswers to Claude’ s interrog atories. ¶ 53 In addition to this testimonial evidenc e, all documents and rea l evidenc e are also locate d in Fr ance

. Claude’s sourc es of renta l and retire ment income orig inate entirely in Fr ance

. Claude owns multipl e rental proper ties in Lyon, Fr ance , and has a 50% i ntere st in a house

-11-i n Perpig nan, Fr ance

. Claude also maintains a Fr ench bank acc ount. As menti o n ed
,

compulsory proce ss of C laude’ s financ ial information would be difficult if not impossibl e if the trial wer e held in I llinois

. In considering this fac tor, howeve r, we are mindful that the location of documents and rec ords has bec o m e a l ess signific ant fac tor in forum non

conve niens analy ses g iven that documents can easily be sent elec tronically to I llinois

. Vivas
, 392 I ll. App. 3d at 659; W oodward , 368 I ll. App. 3d at 834. ¶ 54 Finally
, the court was require d to consider “ ‘all other prac tical problems that make tria l of a case easy , expeditious
, and inexpens i v e. ’ ” Langenhorst
, 219 I ll. 2d at 443 (quoting Guerine
, 198 I ll. 2d at 516). This fac tor also weighs in favor of transfe r to Fr ance

. The rec ord shows that both parties require d the service s o f an i n t erpr eter during the hearing on Danielle’ s motion to dismiss

. The court noted in its written order that the hearing took “2 to 3 times longe r due to the use of an interpre ter.” Danielle testi fi ed t h at s he has to have an interpre ter with her to communicate to her lawyer and that she spent about €4,000 to translate leg al documents. ¶ 55 For these rea sons, w e cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion in finding that the private interest fa ctors strong ly favor transfe r to Fr ance

. ¶ 56 The trial court was also require d to consider the public interest fac tors. These fac tors are : “ ‘(1) the interest in deciding co n t ro v ersies locally ; (2) the unfairne ss of imposing trial
expense and the burden of jury duty on residents of a forum that has littl e connec tion to the l i t i g ation; and (3) the administrative difficulties prese nted by adding litigation to alre ady
cong ested court dockets.’ ” Vivas
, 392 I ll. App. 3d at 660 (quoting Langenhorst
, 219 I ll. 2d at 443-44). ¶ 57 First, the public interest fac tor of deciding marital controve rsies loca lly favor s transfe r to Fr ance

. “I

n domestic relations case s wher e the marria g e occur red in the same county that the marital home w as located and the c hildren re sided, there is a strongtie to that county .” Mather
, 408 I ll. App. 3d at 861. Her e, ther e is not a strong tie to Cook County

. The parties

wer e marrie d in civil and relig ious cer emonies in Fr ance

. Although the parties briefly resided in I llinois during the marria g e, they also trave led back and for th to Fra nce. T he par

ties had

no children toge ther. The parties’ main source s of i ncome are in Fr ance

. Although Claude has proper

ty in I llinois
, it wa s purcha sed befor e the parties’ marria g e and likely will not be considered m arital proper ty

. The most likely contested proper ties for the purposes of this action are located in Fr ance

. Whil e Clau d e arg ues that both parties are perma nent leg al residents of the United States, he seems to overlook the fac t that both parties are also Fr ench citizens and that Danielle has not resided in I llinois since November 2008. Acc ording ly
, this matter ha s strong er ties to F ranc e than to I llinois

. ¶ 58 Second, the unfairne ss of imposin g t ri al ex p en s es an d the burden of jury duty on residents of a forum that has littl e connec tion to the litigation favor s transfe r. Although this is not a jury matter, I llinois has s u ch m i n imal ties to this case that it could be considere d unfair to impose the ex pense of a trial on its citizens. See Mather
, 408 I ll. App. 3d at 861. The parties are both Fr ench citizens wh o m ar ri ed in Fr ance and have no minor children. Although Claude owns proper ty in I llinois and pay s income and r eal e state tax in the State of I llinois , Fr ancehas more of a conne ction to the issues expected to be litigated.

-12-¶ 59 Third, compar ative cong estion in the respe ctive courts is not a fac tor in this case wher e

neither party prese nted evidenc e that ther e i s l ess or more cong estion in Fr ench courts. Mather
, 408 I ll. App. 3d at 861; Berbig v. Se ars Roebuck &Co.
, 378 I ll. App. 3d 185, 189 (2007) (“c ourt cong estion is a relatively insignifica nt fac tor, espec ially wher e the rec ord does
not show the other forum would resolve the case more quickly”). Additionally
, our supreme

co u rt h as h el d that “[w]hen deciding forum non conve niens issues, the trial court is in the better position to assess the burdens on its own docket.” Langenhorst
, 219 I ll. 2d at 451. As a result, we cannot s ay that the trial court err ed in g iving no weight t o t h i s fa ctor. Mather
, 408 I ll. App. 3d at 861. ¶ 60 In light of this evidenc e, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in find i n g t hat the public interest fa ctors strong ly favor transfe r to Fr ance

. ¶ 61 After considering the private and public interest fac tors, the court was require d to balance these fac tors without emphasizing any one fac tor. Langenhorst
, 219 I ll. 2d at 443. On revie w,

we will reve rse the trial court’s decision only if the court abused its discretion. Mather
, 408 I ll. App. 3d at 862. ¶ 62 Her e, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in balanc i n g t h e re levant fac tors. The trial court proper ly found that Claude’s choice of forum merited subs t an t i al defe renc e, despite the fac t that he owns prope rty in both I llinois and Franc e. The court did
not err in findin g th at the private and public interest fac tors weighed strong ly in favor of transfe r. Mather
, 408 I ll. App. 3d at 862; Langenhorst
, 219 I ll. 2d at 448; Vivas
, 392 I ll. App. 3d at 663. ¶ 63 In rea ching this conclusion, we reje ct Claude’s argument that the court’s rulingdeprive d him of his constitutional rig ht to obtain a reme dy in a co u rt of law. The rec ord shows the
court dismiss ed Claude’s petition pursuant t o t h e conditions set forth in Rule 187(c) (2). Those conditions are :

“(i) [I ]f [ Claude] elects to file the a ction in another forum within six months of the dismissal order, [Danielle] shall acc ept servic e of pr ocess f rom that court; and (ii) if the statute of limit ations has run in the other forum, [Danielle] shall waive that defe nse. I f [Danielle] ref

uses to abide by th es e conditions, the cause shall be reinstated for further proce eding s in the court in which the dismiss al was g rante d. I f the court in the other forum ref

uses to acc ept jurisdiction, [C laude] may , within 30 day s of the final order ref using jurisdiction, re instate the ac tion in the [ circ uit court of Cook County ].” See I ll. S. C t. R. 187(c)(2) (i), (ii) ( eff . Aug . 1, 1986). ¶ 64 The doctrine of forum non conve niens contemplates a plaintiff’s right t o a remedy and provides that, in addit ion to having the power to hear the case , the alternative forum must also aff ord the plaintiff an adequa te reme dy

. Stonnell
, 132 I ll. App. 3d at 1045-46. Howeve r, the alternative forum need not provide the exact same reme dy and may not be circ umvented beca use fore ign law may be less favor able. Philips Electronics
, 312 I ll. App. 3d at 1085. Rather, the alternative forum may be avoided when “the application of the fore ign law
p re s ents a dang er that plaintiffs would be deprive d of any reme dy or treated unfairly .” Phillips Electronics
, 312 I ll. App. 3d at 1085. Her e, there is no rea son to believe that Fr ench

-13-law prese nts such a dang er. This is espec ially so wher e Claude has twice befor e been

awa rded a divorce under Fr ench law. There fore
, the trial cour t d id not violate Claude’s constitutional rights whe n it dism issed his petition.

¶ 65 CONCLUSI ON ¶ 66 For the rea sons st at ed
, we aff irm the trial court’s order g ranting Danielle’ s motion to dismiss Claude’s pe tition on forum non conve niens g rounds.

¶ 67 Affir

med.

-14-