Ayala v. Fox

Appellate Court of Illinois, Second District · Family Law

Family LawUnmarried cohabitationProperty rightsHewitt v. Hewittunmarried cohabitantsequitable interestmarital residenceconstructive trust

Facts

Plaintiff and Fox began living together in 1976. Plaintiff alleged that Fox promised the home they financed and occupied together would be titled in both names as joint tenants and that she would receive half the equity if they stopped living together; in reliance, she obligated herself on a $48,000 mortgage, and the parties later lived in the house together and contributed to expenses. After they separated in 1988, Fox did not place title in joint tenancy, did not pay plaintiff half the equity, and instead transferred title by deed in trust to the bank. Plaintiff sued seeking contract-, equity-, fiduciary-, unjust-enrichment-, and partnership-based relief concerning the house and certain personal property.

Issue

Whether, under Hewitt v. Hewitt, an unmarried cohabitant may recover an equitable or similar property interest in a residence and personal property where the asserted rights are intimately related to the parties' nonmarital cohabitation. More specifically, the question was whether plaintiff's claims were sufficiently independent of cohabitation to avoid Hewitt's bar.

Rule

Under Illinois law, courts will not grant mutual property rights to knowingly unmarried cohabitants where the claim is based upon or intimately related to the parties' cohabitation, because doing so would effectively confer marital-type rights and contravene state public policy against common-law marriage. Claims that are substantially independent of the nonmarital relationship are distinguishable, but claims seeking interests closely resembling rights arising from marriage are barred.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Jordan Vega and Melissa Tran lived together for nine years in Peoria, Illinois, in a house titled solely in Jordan's name. Melissa alleges Jordan orally promised that if she helped pay the mortgage and utilities while they lived together, she would receive half the home's equity if they ever separated; after the breakup, she sues for that share.

Under the majority rule, how should an Illinois court most likely rule on Melissa's claim?

Explanation. The controlling inquiry is whether the asserted right is based on or intimately related to the parties' nonmarital cohabitation and whether it closely resembles a right arising from marriage. A demand for half the equity in the shared home based on promises made in the context of living together is the kind of marital-type claim the majority held Illinois public policy bars.