Hewitt v. Hewitt

Supreme Court of Illinois · 2018 · Property

394 N.E.2d 1204 (Ill. 1979)

Updated July 23, 2026

Propertyunmarried cohabitantsnonmarital cohabitationpublic policyexpress contractimplied contractconstructive trustunjust enrichment

Facts

Plaintiff alleged that she and defendant lived together from 1960 to 1975 in an unmarried family-like relationship and had three children. She claimed defendant told her they were husband and wife without need for a ceremony and promised to share his life, earnings, future, and property with her, and that they held themselves out as married. Plaintiff alleged she devoted her efforts to defendant's professional education and practice, contributed services and funds, and helped accumulate property standing jointly or separately in defendant's name. She sought one-half of the profits and property on theories of express promise, implied contract, fraud/constructive trust, and unjust enrichment.

Issue

May a knowingly unmarried cohabitant recover an equal share of property accumulated during a long-term family-like relationship on theories of express contract, implied contract, constructive trust, or unjust enrichment? More specifically, may Illinois courts recognize mutually enforceable property rights arising out of such nonmarital cohabitation consistent with Illinois public policy?

Rule

In Illinois, claims by knowingly unmarried cohabitants for mutually enforceable property rights arising from their marriage-like relationship are unenforceable when they contravene the public policy implicit in the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act, which favors solemnized marriage, rejects common law marriage, and disfavors private contractual substitutes for marriage. The issue is not treated as merely ordinary contract law when the claimed rights arise from an intimate, marriage-like arrangement.

🔒

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 Chicago, Lena Ortiz and Daniel Mercer lived together for 11 years, deliberately never obtaining a marriage license because they did not want state involvement in their relationship. Daniel repeatedly told Lena that if she stayed home, managed the household, and supported his architectural career, "everything we build will be ours equally." After they separated, Lena sued in Illinois for half of the assets accumulated in Daniel's name based on that oral promise.

How should an Illinois court rule on Lena's claim?

Explanation. The majority held that Illinois will not enforce claims for mutually enforceable property rights when they arise from a knowingly unmarried, marriage-like relationship. The court rejected treating such disputes as ordinary contract cases and refused to adopt a Marvin-style rule for express agreements, because recognition would undermine the statutory policy favoring solemnized marriage and disfavoring private substitutes for marriage.