Family Law (Cohabitation and Contracts)
Hewitt v. Hewitt, 77 Ill. 2d 49, 394 N.E.2d 1204 (Ill. 1979)
Study notes for Hewitt v. Hewitt: professor notes, cold call prep, exam angles, and memory aids.
The Illinois Supreme Court prohibits the enforcement of property claims based on cohabitation agreements due to public policy restrictions.
In Hewitt v. Hewitt, the Illinois Supreme Court dealt with the complex issues surrounding cohabitation and the enforcement of property claims between unmarried partners. The court emphasized the significance of public policy in shaping the legal landscape for cohabitating couples. It reaffirmed that while parties may have a mutual agreement regarding their relationship and property, the enforcement of such agreements could not contravene the state’s public policy regarding marriage and cohabitation.
The case also highlights the tension between the desire for equitable relief in the form of property distribution and the judicial respect for familial structures established by marriage. The court's refusal to recognize cohabitation-related claims promotes legal stability concerning property rights, while simultaneously leaving open the potential for child-related claims that are governed by existing legal principles. This distinction is critical in understanding how courts navigate family law beyond the confines of traditional marriage.
HEWITT: Holding Enforces What Is Traditional, Though [it]suer is married.
| Case | Distinction |
|---|---|
| Marvin v. Marvin | Marvin allows for enforcement of certain agreements between unmarried couples in California, suggesting different public policy considerations. |
| Dunham v. Dunham | Dunham, unlike Hewitt, recognized a meritorious claim to equitable distribution based on a long-term cohabitation agreement. |
| In re Estate of Riggins | Riggins emphasizes different legal standards and perhaps a more inclusive approach toward recognizing cohabitant rights in estate matters. |
Enforcing property claims between cohabitants could undermine traditional marriage by creating a parallel legal system that could encourage informal unions without commitment.
Denying enforcement of such claims disregards the realities of modern relationships and the contributions of individuals in non-marital partnerships.
Hewitt v. Hewitt often appears on exams as a case examining the enforceability of agreements between unmarried cohabitants, particularly regarding property and public policy implications. Expect analysis around the differentiation of claims based on cohabitation versus formal marriage.