## Facts

- Dr. Jane E. Blumenthal and Judge Eileen M. Brewer were same-sex domestic partners for about 26 years, raised three children, and jointly owned a Chicago residence, but never married.
- After the relationship ended, Blumenthal filed an action to partition the jointly owned home.
- Brewer filed a counterclaim seeking equitable and quasi-contract remedies to “equalize” assets, including sole title to the home and an interest connected to Blumenthal’s ownership in a medical group.
- Brewer alleged their relationship functioned like a marriage: exchanging rings, naming each other as beneficiaries and fiduciaries, commingling assets, and acquiring property together; she also alleged she contributed to Blumenthal’s professional advancement while assuming primary domestic and child-rearing responsibilities.
- Blumenthal moved to dismiss the counterclaim under Hewitt v. Hewitt, which bars enforcement of mutual property rights between unmarried cohabitants when the rights asserted are rooted in a marriage-like relationship.
- The circuit court dismissed Brewer’s counterclaim; the partition action proceeded to judgment and was not at issue on review.
- The appellate court reversed, concluding Hewitt was outdated and that Illinois public policy no longer treated unmarried domestic partnerships as illicit.
- The Illinois Supreme Court granted review.

## Issues

1. Whether Hewitt v. Hewitt remains controlling Illinois law barring claims by unmarried cohabitants to enforce mutual property rights rooted in a marriage-like relationship.
2. Whether the asserted claims were independently grounded in contract or economics, rather than dependent on the domestic relationship.
3. Whether applying Hewitt to a same-sex couple—who could not marry for much of their relationship—was irrational or discriminatory under later legal developments.

## Decision

- The Illinois Supreme Court vacated in part and reversed in part the appellate court and affirmed the circuit court’s dismissal of Brewer’s counterclaim.
- The Court held Hewitt remains good law and continues to reflect Illinois public policy expressed in the statutory abolition of common-law marriage and the statutory scheme governing marriage and dissolution.
- The Court concluded Brewer’s counterclaim sought marriage-like relief and lacked an independent contractual or economic basis sufficient to avoid Hewitt’s bar.
- The Court rejected the contention that intervening constitutional and statutory changes concerning same-sex relationships displaced Hewitt’s rationale or made its application unconstitutional.
- A partial concurrence/dissent would have limited or abandoned Hewitt and allowed Brewer’s claims to proceed.

## Legal Principles

- Illinois public policy bars unmarried cohabitants from obtaining judicial enforcement of mutual property rights when the claimed rights depend on a marriage-like domestic relationship.
- Courts distinguish barred marriage-like claims from claims based on an independent contract or discrete economic arrangement not premised on the relationship itself.
- The statutory abolition of common-law marriage supports limiting marital-type remedies (such as dissolution-related equitable relief) to those who enter a formal marriage.
- Changes to the scope of rights and remedies for unmarried cohabitants are for the legislature, absent legislative action creating marriage-equivalent remedies.
- The rule applies without regard to the parties’ sex or sexual orientation; the state may limit statutory marital benefits to those who marry.

## Conclusion

The Illinois Supreme Court reaffirmed that unmarried partners may not use equitable or quasi-contract theories to obtain marital-type property adjustments when the claims are rooted in their domestic relationship, and it applied that rule to a long-term same-sex partnership, leaving any expansion of such remedies to legislative action.


Blumenthal v. Brewer, 2016 IL 118781, 69 N.E.3d 834 (Ill. 2016)