Hewitt v. Hewitt, 77 Ill. 2d 49, 394 N.E.2d 1204 (Ill. 1979)
Hewitt v. Hewitt is a leading Illinois Supreme Court decision that squarely addresses whether unmarried cohabitants may invoke contract and equitable doctrines to claim marital-style property rights upon the breakdown of their relationship.
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.
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.