The parties cohabited for roughly 15 years, held themselves out as husband and wife, and had three children together. The plaintiff took the defendant's surname, and the couple publicly represented that they were married, though they never entered a ceremonial marriage. According to the complaint, they agreed to live as spouses and to share equally in earnings and any property accumulated during their relationship. The plaintiff alleged that she provided homemaking, childcare, and economic support that enabled the defendant to complete his professional education (including dental training) and establish a lucrative dental practice. Throughout the relationship, assets—including the residence and business interests—were titled solely in the defendant's name. After the relationship ended, the plaintiff sued, seeking an equitable share of property allegedly acquired through their joint efforts. She asserted several theories: an express and/or implied contract to share property, partnership/joint venture, constructive trust, and unjust enrichment. The trial court dismissed the property-related counts as contrary to Illinois public policy; the appellate court reversed in part, but the Illinois Supreme Court granted review.
Whether Illinois courts may enforce contract and equitable claims between unmarried cohabitants to divide property accumulated during their relationship when those claims rest on an agreement to cohabit and hold themselves out as spouses.
In Illinois, because the legislature has abolished common-law marriage and enacted a comprehensive statutory scheme governing marriage and its dissolution, courts will not recognize or enforce marital-style property rights between unmarried cohabitants when those claims are founded upon a nonmarital (meretricious) cohabitation relationship. Contract or equitable claims that effectively replicate marital property distribution are barred as contrary to Illinois public policy; courts will not use implied contract or equitable doctrines to achieve indirectly what is unavailable directly under the Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act.
The Illinois Supreme Court held that the plaintiff's claims for an equitable division of property based on cohabitation—whether framed in contract, partnership, constructive trust, or unjust enrichment—are barred by Illinois public policy. It reversed the appellate court and reinstated dismissal of the property-related counts. The Court left undisturbed child-related claims, which are governed by separate legal principles.
The Court grounded its decision in Illinois public policy as expressed by statute. First, Illinois abolished common-law marriage, signaling that marital rights and obligations arise only through compliance with statutory formalities. Second, the Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act is a comprehensive framework that prescribes rights and remedies incident to marriage and its termination, including spousal property distribution. Recognizing the plaintiff's claims would, in the Court's view, create an alternative, nonstatutory path to obtain marital-style rights without marrying, undermining the legislative scheme. The Court distinguished and declined to follow California's Marvin v. Marvin. Unlike California, Illinois had a clear and affirmative policy choice against conferring marriage incidents outside formal marriage, and the Court emphasized that changes to this policy, if any, must come from the General Assembly, not judicial innovation. The Court further reasoned that equitable remedies such as constructive trust and unjust enrichment cannot be used to circumvent legislative policy: when the core of the claim is the nonmarital cohabitation and mutual understanding to live as spouses and share property, enforcement would tacitly validate a relationship Illinois law declines to recognize. The Court also expressed institutional and administrability concerns: adjudicating such claims would require courts to assess intimate domestic arrangements and quantify domestic contributions in a context the legislature chose to regulate through marriage. Finally, the Court noted that its ruling did not foreclose child support or parentage-related obligations, which rest on distinct policy grounds and statutory authority.
Hewitt is the cornerstone Illinois case rejecting palimony and similar claims between unmarried cohabitants whose requests mirror marital property distribution. It exemplifies how public policy can limit private ordering and common-law remedies, even where enrichment or reliance is alleged. For law students, Hewitt contrasts sharply with Marvin and highlights jurisdictional divergence: some states allow express or implied cohabitation agreements; Illinois generally does not when they are inseparable from the cohabitation itself. The decision has enduring force—reaffirmed decades later in Blumenthal v. Brewer (Ill. 2016)—and frames exam-ready discussions about the limits of contract and equity in domestic relations and the primacy of statutory family law.
Hewitt v. Hewitt draws a bright doctrinal line in Illinois: marital incidents, including property distribution upon relationship breakdown, are reserved for those who comply with statutory marriage formalities. The Court's refusal to extend contract and equitable doctrines to nonmarital cohabitants reflects a strong commitment to legislative primacy in family law and to the policy choices embedded in the Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act.