## Facts

- Andrea Marie Hall died intestate in 1996.
- Regina Pavone, Hall’s same-sex life partner, claimed they cohabited for years, commingled assets, incurred joint credit obligations, and shared real-estate financing.
- In 1991, Hall conveyed a one-half interest in a residence to Pavone; the property was later sold and proceeds were used to purchase another home financed in both names.
- In 1995, Pavone and Hall held a private ceremony exchanging vows and rings and thereafter held themselves out as married.
- They did not obtain a marriage license, asserting they believed an attempt would be futile under Illinois law.
- Pavone petitioned for an intestate “surviving spouse” share under the Illinois Probate Act and also raised constitutional objections to Illinois’s nonrecognition of same-sex marriage.
- The estate administrator moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim, arguing Illinois did not recognize same-sex marriage or in-state common-law marriage; the trial court dismissed and denied reconsideration.

## Issues

1. Whether a constitutional challenge to Illinois’s marriage laws was justiciable within a probate proceeding seeking a “surviving spouse” share where the partners never applied for a marriage license.
2. Whether, under existing Illinois law, a same-sex partner could qualify as a “surviving spouse” based on a private ceremony, cohabitation, and economic interdependence absent a licensed marriage.

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed dismissal of the petition.
- The court held the constitutional challenge was not justiciable in this probate proceeding and declined to reach the merits of the equal-protection arguments.
- Applying existing Illinois law, the court concluded Pavone could not be a “surviving spouse” because there was no valid marriage recognized by Illinois.

## Legal Principles

- A court administering intestate succession applies the statutory term “surviving spouse” according to the state’s marriage-validity requirements.
- A broad constitutional attack on marriage statutes is not justiciable in an estate proceeding when there is no concrete enforcement action (such as an actual denial of a marriage license) and the issue is collateral to estate administration.
- Where a jurisdiction does not recognize same-sex marriage and does not recognize common-law marriage contracted within the state, cohabitation, shared finances, and a private ceremony do not create spousal status for intestacy purposes.
- Expanding spousal status beyond statutory requirements is a legislative matter absent a properly postured, direct constitutional challenge.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed dismissal because the petitioner lacked “surviving spouse” status under Illinois intestacy law without a legally recognized marriage, and her constitutional challenge to the marriage laws was not justiciable in the probate case where no marriage license had been sought or denied.


In re Estate of Hall, 707 N.E.2d 201 (Ill. App. Ct. 1998)