Blumenthal v. Brewer
2016 IL 118781
| Ill. | 2016Background
- Jane Blumenthal (physician) and Eileen Brewer (judge) lived together in a long-term, marriage-like same-sex relationship beginning in 1981, jointly owned a Chicago house, commingled finances, and raised three children together but never married.
- Blumenthal filed a partition action for the jointly owned residence; Brewer counterclaimed asserting five counts seeking constructive trust, equitable division, credits for contributions, quantum meruit, and a constructive trust/restoration relating to Blumenthal’s ownership interest in a medical practice (GSN).
- The circuit court dismissed Brewer’s entire counterclaim under Hewitt v. Hewitt, 77 Ill. 2d 49 (Ill. 1979), which bars common-law property claims by knowingly unmarried cohabitants when claims are rooted in a marriage-like relationship.
- Brewer appealed under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 304(a); the appellate court rejected Hewitt as obsolete and reversed as to the counterclaim, but the partition trial proceeded to final judgment while the appeal was pending and Brewer did not stay the partition.
- The circuit court later adjudicated the partition, set values and credits, Brewer bought out Blumenthal’s share, and no appeal was taken from that partition judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Brewer's Argument | Blumenthal's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hewitt still bars common-law property claims by unmarried cohabitants | Hewitt is obsolete given statutory and social changes; it should be rejected so Brewer can pursue common-law remedies | Hewitt implements the statutory ban on common-law marriage (750 ILCS 5/214) and remains binding; only legislature can change policy | Court affirmed Hewitt; it remains controlling and bars claims rooted in a marriage-like relationship |
| Whether appellate court had jurisdiction under Rule 304(a) to hear dismissal of counts I, II, IV, V | Brewer appealed under Rule 304(a) with a special finding | Blumenthal argued the dismissed counts were not final/separate and Rule 304(a) jurisdiction was lacking | Court held dismissal of counts I, II, IV, V was not final/separable; appellate court lacked jurisdiction and erred to review them |
| Mootness / res judicata effect of partition judgment on counts addressing division of the house | Reinstating those counts could alter division of the home | Partition proceeded to final judgment; parties settled and conveyed property; counts became moot and would be barred by res judicata or law-of-the-case | Court held counts I, II, IV, V moot/res judicata prevents revival; partition judgment final and binding |
| Viability of count III (constructive trust / restitution for medical-practice interest) and constitutional challenge | Brewer urged constructive trust or restitution for funds from joint account used to buy Blumenthal’s GSN interest; also claimed Hewitt violates due process/equal protection as applied to same-sex partners | Blumenthal argued statutory/regulatory barriers prevent transferring medical practice ownership to non-physician (constructive trust not available); Hewitt bars restitution because purchase was made from commingled family funds | Court held constructive trust impossible under medical statutes and dismissed that remedy; rejected restitution claim under Hewitt as barred by public policy and found Hewitt constitutional in this context |
Key Cases Cited
- Hewitt v. Hewitt, 77 Ill. 2d 49 (Ill. 1979) (Illinois Supreme Court holding public policy and statutory ban on common-law marriage bar enforcement of marriage-like property claims between knowingly unmarried cohabitants)
- Marvin v. Marvin, 557 P.2d 106 (Cal. 1976) (California en banc decision recognizing enforceability of agreements between nonmarital cohabitants under certain conditions)
- Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584 (U.S. 2015) (U.S. Supreme Court recognizing same-sex couples’ right to marry; discussed by majority as background on marriage’s public importance)