Blumenthal v. Brewer
2016 IL 118781
| Ill. | 2016Background
- Dr. Jane Blumenthal and Judge Eileen Brewer lived together in a long-term, marriage-like same-sex relationship, commingled finances, jointly owned a Chicago home, and raised children but never married.
- Blumenthal filed for partition of the jointly owned Chicago home after the relationship ended; Brewer counterclaimed seeking (a) constructive trust/equitable division/quantum meruit credits relating to the home (Counts I, II, IV, V) and (b) a constructive trust or restitution from Blumenthal’s ownership/earnings in her medical practice (Count III).
- The circuit court dismissed Brewer’s entire counterclaim relying on Hewitt v. Hewitt, which bars marriage-like common-law claims by knowingly unmarried cohabitants; the partition trial later proceeded and the court finally valued and divided the home; Brewer did not appeal that partition judgment but appealed dismissal under Supreme Court Rule 304(a).
- The appellate court rejected Hewitt and reversed dismissal, but the Illinois Supreme Court granted review and addressed (1) whether the appellate court properly entertained the appeal and (2) the continued vitality of Hewitt.
- The Illinois Supreme Court held: appellate court lacked authority to overrule Hewitt; dismissal of Counts I, II, IV, V was nonfinal and moot given the unappealed partition judgment (and res judicata/law-of-the-case bars); Count III (medical-practice claim) was dismissed because the alleged contributions were not shown to be independent of the marriage-like relationship and a constructive-trust remedy was statutorily infeasible.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Blumenthal) | Defendant's Argument (Brewer) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Whether appellate court could review dismissal of Counts I, II, IV, V under Rule 304(a) | Rule 304(a) appeal improper only if order is final; circuit judge made required written finding | Appellate review proper under Rule 304(a) | Dismissal of those counts was nonfinal because they addressed the same controversy as the partition; appellate court lacked jurisdiction; decision vacated as to those counts and moot because partition judgment later became final |
| 2) Whether Hewitt remains binding and bars marriage-like common-law/property claims by unmarried cohabitants | Hewitt remains binding; overturning it would resurrect common-law marriage and is for the legislature | Hewitt is obsolete given statutory and social changes since 1979; courts elsewhere allow such claims | Hewitt controls; appellate court improperly attempted to overrule it; only the Supreme Court may alter Hewitt and the legislature has not done so |
| 3) Viability of Count III (constructive trust / restitution re: medical practice) | Count III alleges commingled funds were used to buy Blumenthal’s interest in GSN and seeks constructive trust or restitution | Brewer urges appellate court’s rejection of Hewitt to permit common-law restitution; also argues equities support relief | Constructive trust on corporate ownership interest impossible under Medical Corporation/Practice Acts (nonphysician cannot hold such interest); restitution claim fails because alleged contributions are not shown to be independent of the marital-like relationship and thus barred by Hewitt |
| 4) Constitutional challenge (due process/equal protection) to Hewitt | Hewitt irrationally penalizes intimate relationships and discriminates against cohabitants; modern statutes and Obergefell undermine Hewitt’s rationale | Hewitt effectuates legislature’s decision to make marriage the source of certain legal rights; refusing those statutory marriage benefits to nonparticipants is rational and permissible | Court rejected Brewer’s constitutional challenge: Hewitt implements a legitimate state interest in preserving the special regime of marriage and does not unconstitutionally deny ordinary contract/equitable remedies where claims are independent of a marriage-like relationship |
Key Cases Cited
- Hewitt v. Hewitt, 77 Ill. 2d 49 (Ill. 1979) (Illinois Supreme Court rule barring marriage-like common-law property claims by knowingly unmarried cohabitants)
- Price v. Philip Morris, Inc., 2015 IL 117687 (Ill. 2015) (lower courts bound by Illinois Supreme Court precedent; only Supreme Court may overrule its prior opinions)
- Spafford v. Coats, 118 Ill. App. 3d 566 (Ill. App. Ct. 1983) (equitable relief allowed when claims rest on independent economic contributions, not marital-like relationship)
- Ayala v. Fox, 206 Ill. App. 3d 538 (Ill. App. Ct. 1990) (Hewitt bars equitable recovery when claim is intimately related to cohabitation and resembles marital property division)
- Costa v. Oliven, 365 Ill. App. 3d 244 (Ill. App. Ct. 2006) (affirming Hewitt-based dismissal where plaintiff’s claims arose from a quasi-marital relationship)
- Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584 (U.S. 2015) (same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry; does not mandate recognition of nonmarital common-law claims)