Blumenthal v. Brewer

Supreme Court of Illinois · 2016 · Family Law

Family Lawunmarried cohabitantscommon-law marriagepartitionconstructive trustrestitutionunjust enrichmentRule 304(a)

Facts

Blumenthal and Brewer were domestic partners for decades, jointly owned a Chicago home, and raised three children together, but they never married. After the relationship ended, Blumenthal sought partition of the home. Brewer counterclaimed, seeking common-law remedies concerning the home and also a constructive trust or restitution relating to Blumenthal’s ownership interest in her medical practice, alleging that joint funds had been used to purchase that interest. While Brewer appealed the dismissal of her counterclaim, the partition action proceeded to final judgment, the home’s value was allocated, Brewer bought out Blumenthal’s share, and no appeal was taken from that judgment.

Issue

Whether Brewer’s counterclaims could proceed despite Hewitt v. Hewitt, which bars property-rights claims between knowingly unmarried cohabitants when the claims are rooted in a marriage-like relationship. Also, whether the appellate court had jurisdiction under Rule 304(a) to review dismissal of the home-related counts and whether applying Hewitt violated due process or equal protection.

Rule

Under Illinois law, knowingly unmarried cohabitants may not obtain common-law relief to enforce mutual property rights when the claim is based on or intimately related to their marriage-like relationship, because such relief would contravene the public policy reflected in section 214 of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act abolishing common-law marriage. Rule 304(a) permits appeal only from a final judgment disposing of an entire claim or a definite separate part of the controversy; dismissal of alternative theories concerning the same unresolved claim is not final. Claims may proceed only if they have an independent economic basis apart from the parties’ marriage-like cohabitation.

🔒

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.

In Cook County, Nora Levin sued for partition of a duplex she jointly owned with Maya Ortiz after their 15-year unmarried relationship ended. Maya filed counterclaims for unjust enrichment, quantum meruit for repairs, and equitable allocation of carrying costs, all aimed at increasing her share of the duplex’s value; the trial judge dismissed those counts and added a Rule 304(a) finding while the partition action remained pending.

Is the dismissal immediately appealable under Rule 304(a)?

Explanation. Rule 304(a) permits appeal only from a final judgment disposing of an entire claim or a definite separate part of the controversy. When multiple counts arise from the same operative facts and merely propose different ways to value or divide the same property, dismissal of some counts is not final. A Rule 304(a) finding cannot make a nonfinal order appealable. (Derived from Blumenthal v. Brewer (n.d.).)