of the Act, “all property acquired by either spouse after the marriage and before a judgment of dissolution *** is presumed to be marital property, regardless of whether title is held individually or by the spouses in some form of co-ownership.” 750 ILCS 5/503(b) (West 2000). Further, section 503(e) provides in pertinent part that “[e]ach spouse has a species of common ownership in the marital property which vests at the time dissolution proceedings are commenced and continues only during the pendency of the action.” 750 ILCS 5/503(e) (West 2000). Thus, during the pendency of the divorce proceedings Debora has a vested interest in all marital property regardless of which party holds title to it. 750 ILCS 5/503(e) (West 2000); Hofmann v. Hofmann, 94 Ill. 2d 205, 446 N.E.2d 499 (1983) (<HOLDING>). While the term “property” has been defined as
holding that the law to be applied in determining the validity of  an outofstate marriage is the law of the state in which the marriage occurred holding husband could not have marriage annulled because wife was pregnant by him at time of marriage recognizing that basis for deportation was aliens misrepresentation about his marriage not the validity of his marriage recognizing the common enterprise theory of marriage recognizing theory of constructive possession