Hewitt v. Hewitt – Common Law Marriage
Hewitt v. Hewitt, 77 Ill. 2d 49, 394 N.E.2d 1204 (Ill. 1979).
NATURE OF THE CASE: This family law case involved a dispute over a property division between an unmarried couple.
FACTS: Victoria Hewitt (P) and Robert Hewitt (D) met in college. When P became pregnant D told her that a marriage ceremony was not required and that they should live together as husband and wife. P and D held themselves out as married to their relatives and the community.
P filed a complaint against (D) for divorce and it was determined that no wedding had ever taken place and that a common law marriage did not exist between the couple. P sought child support for three minor children and a property division. P alleged that D had promised to share property with her and that his promise gave rise to an implied contract and that P detrimentally and reasonably relied on those promises.
P also alleged that she helped D establish his career and that she was entitled to a share of his $80,000 per year salary and large amounts of property accumulated during their relationship. The trial court dismissed P’s complaint and the court of appeals reversed on the grounds that P’s conduct had not so affronted public policy as to be denied any and all relief.
ISSUE: 1) Is marriage by estoppel a valid concept? 2) Must public policy limits be narrowly and exactly applied?
RULE OF LAW: 1) No. Marriage by estoppel is not a valid concept. 2) No. Public policy limits need not be narrowly and exactly applied.
HOLDING AND DECISION: Whether or not Victoria Hewitt’s cause of action should be permitted is a question involving complex public policy considerations with compelling arguments on both sides. It is for the legislature to bring these changes about and not the courts. P’s claims are unenforceable as they contravene public policy, implicit in the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act, which disfavors the grant of mutually enforceable property rights to knowingly unmarried cohabitants.
DISPOSITION: Reversed.