Hewitt v. Hewitt
77 Ill.2d 49, 394 N.E.2d 1204 (1979)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Claims by unmarried cohabitants for a share of property accumulated during the relationship are unenforceable as they contravene the public policy of Illinois, which is to strengthen the institution of marriage and which has legislatively abolished common law marriage.
Facts:
- In June 1960, while students at Grinnell College, Victoria Hewitt became pregnant by Robert Hewitt.
- Robert Hewitt told Victoria Hewitt that they were husband and wife, that a formal ceremony was unnecessary, and that he would share his life, future, earnings, and property with her.
- From 1960 to 1975, the parties held themselves out to the public and their parents as a married couple and had three children.
- Victoria Hewitt devoted her efforts to Robert's professional education and establishment in the practice of pedodontia, securing financial help from her parents for this purpose.
- Victoria assisted Robert in his career, and although she received payroll checks for these services, she deposited them into a common fund used by the parties.
- During the 15-year relationship, Robert Hewitt became a successful professional, earned a high income, and accumulated large amounts of property.
Procedural Posture:
- Victoria Hewitt filed a complaint for divorce against Robert Hewitt in the circuit court of Champaign County, the trial court of first instance.
- The trial court dismissed the divorce complaint after Victoria Hewitt admitted the parties were never legally married, but granted her leave to file an amended complaint.
- Victoria Hewitt filed an amended complaint seeking a share of the property under theories of express contract, implied contract, and unjust enrichment.
- The trial court dismissed the amended complaint, ruling that Illinois law requires such claims to be based on a valid marriage.
- Victoria Hewitt, as appellant, appealed the dismissal to the Illinois Appellate Court.
- The appellate court reversed the trial court's decision, holding that the complaint stated a valid cause of action.
- Robert Hewitt, as appellant, was granted leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Illinois.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an unmarried individual who has cohabited with another in a marriage-like relationship have a legally enforceable claim against that person for a share of the property accumulated during the relationship based on theories of express contract, implied contract, or unjust enrichment?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Underwood
No. Claims by an unmarried cohabitant for a share of property accumulated during the relationship are unenforceable because they violate the public policy of Illinois. The court reasoned that recognizing such property rights would undermine the legislative policy of strengthening the institution of marriage as established in the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act. The Act explicitly abolished common law marriage in 1905, and enforcing the agreement alleged by Victoria Hewitt would effectively reinstate it, contrary to clear legislative intent. The court distinguished this case from California's Marvin v. Marvin, stating that the issue is not merely one of contract law but of public policy regarding domestic relations, an area where the legislature, not the judiciary, should determine state policy. Furthermore, the legislature's recent enactment of the 'putative spouse' doctrine—granting rights only to those who in good faith believe they are married—demonstrates a deliberate choice to withhold such rights from knowingly unmarried cohabitants.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a bright-line rule in Illinois that rejects the modern trend, exemplified by California's Marvin v. Marvin, of allowing property claims between unmarried cohabitants. By prioritizing the state's declared public policy of promoting formal marriage over the private contractual or equitable expectations of the parties, the court reinforced a traditional view of domestic relations. The ruling signals that significant changes to family law, especially those that could be seen as creating a legal status for non-marital relationships, must come from the legislature. This case creates a clear split with jurisdictions that enforce such agreements, making Illinois a more restrictive state for cohabitants seeking property division upon separation.
Unlock the full brief for Hewitt v. Hewitt