Facts
- Victoria L. Hewitt and Robert M. Hewitt cohabited from 1960 to 1975 in an unmarried, family-like relationship and had three children.
- Victoria alleged that in 1960 Robert told her they were “husband and wife” without a ceremony and promised to share “his earnings and his property.”
- The parties told their parents they were married and held themselves out publicly as husband and wife.
- Victoria alleged she relied on Robert’s promises by supporting his education and career, contributing her wages to a common fund, and obtaining financial assistance from her parents.
- Robert began the relationship with little or no money, and substantial property was accumulated during the cohabitation.
- Victoria first sought divorce; she later admitted there was no ceremony and no license, and the trial court found no marriage existed.
- Victoria then filed an amended complaint seeking an equal share of accumulated property under express/implied contract, constructive trust/fraud, and unjust enrichment theories.
Issues
- Whether a knowingly unmarried cohabitant may recover an equal share of property accumulated during the relationship based on express or implied contract, trust, or restitution theories.
- Whether enforcing such claims would contravene Illinois public policy favoring marriage and the statutory scheme governing marital property rights.
Decision
- The Supreme Court of Illinois reversed the appellate court and affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of Victoria’s claims.
- The court held Victoria could not recover an equal share of property accumulated during the period of unmarried cohabitation.
- The court concluded that granting enforceable property rights to knowingly unmarried cohabitants would violate Illinois public policy and that any change should come from the legislature.
Legal Principles
- Illinois public policy ties property and related rights arising from intimate, family-like relationships to valid marriage under the state’s statutory framework.
- Courts will not enforce agreements or equitable claims that are inextricably grounded in a knowingly nonmarital cohabitation relationship when enforcement would effectively confer marriage-like legal status outside the legislature’s scheme.
- Decisions about extending property rights to unmarried cohabitants present broad policy questions reserved to the legislative branch, not judicial innovation through contract or restitution doctrines.
Conclusion
The court refused to recognize contract, trust, or unjust-enrichment remedies that would grant marriage-like property-sharing rights to knowingly unmarried cohabitants, holding that such a change implicates state public policy and must be made by statute rather than by judicial enforcement.