In re Marriage of Allen
2016 IL App (1st) 151620
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Keith and Debra Allen, an opposite-sex couple, cohabited intermittently for about 13 years, married in late 2012, then separated within seven months; both filed for dissolution in 2013.
- Keith is financially affluent from McDonald’s franchises; Debra has modest resources and sought a larger property and maintenance award based on long-term premarital support.
- Days before trial Debra sought leave to amend her petition to add common-law claims (unjust enrichment/quantum meruit) covering the 1999–2012 premarital period, relying on the appellate decision in Blumenthal v. Brewer.
- She requested reopening discovery back to 1999, funds for a financial expert, and attorney fees to pursue the new claim; the trial court denied leave to amend and later excluded her offer of proof at trial.
- The trial court entered a dissolution judgment awarding Debra modest property and 6.4 months maintenance; Debra appealed the denials to amend and to receive/submit her offer of proof.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Debra) | Defendant's Argument (Keith) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether leave to add common-law unjust enrichment/quantum meruit claims based on premarital cohabitation should be allowed | Blumenthal permits common-law claims for partners who were barred from marrying; Debra argues similar relief is appropriate for her premarital contributions to Keith’s wealth | Hewitt bars quasi-contractual/property claims between knowingly unmarried opposite-sex couples; allowing the claim would conflict with Illinois public policy/statutory ban on common-law marriage | Denied. Hewitt controls for opposite-sex couples who could have married; trial court did not abuse discretion |
| Whether the trial court erred by refusing Debra’s offer of proof at trial to support the excluded common-law claims | Offer of proof was necessary to show factual basis for the proposed claim and the requested discovery/expert expenses | The proposed claim was legally deficient under Hewitt; allowing the offer of proof would be futile | Denied. Refusal proper because the proposed claim could not state a viable cause of action |
| Whether Blumenthal undermines Hewitt and requires different treatment of opposite-sex couples | Debra contends Blumenthal shows a shift in appellate treatment of nonmarital claims and supports her amendment | Keith and the court contend Blumenthal was limited to same-sex partners who were legally barred from marrying; it did not overrule Hewitt | Blumenthal is distinguishable and does not overrule Hewitt; it applies to same-sex partners who could not marry, not opposite-sex couples who could have married |
| Whether trial court abused discretion in denying discovery/relief tied to the proposed amendment (expert fees, extended discovery) | Debra argued extended discovery and expert funding were needed to quantify accrual of Keith’s assets during cohabitation | Keith argued such relief was unnecessary because the underlying claim was barred and discovery would be futile and overbroad | Denied. Because the proposed claim was legally deficient, the court properly refused to reopen discovery or award the requested fees |
Key Cases Cited
- Hewitt v. Hewitt, 77 Ill. 2d 49 (Ill. 1979) (rejected equitable/quasi-contract claims between knowingly unmarried opposite-sex cohabitants; courts should not create marital-like property rights).
- Blumenthal v. Brewer, 24 N.E.3d 168 (Ill. App. Ct. 2014) (permitted common-law property claims for long-term same-sex partners who were barred from marrying and emphasized changed public policy).
- Hayes Mechanical, Inc. v. First Industrial, L.P., 351 Ill. App. 3d 1 (Ill. App. Ct. 2004) (denial of leave to amend is appropriate when no viable cause of action can be stated).
- Blazina v. Blazina, 42 Ill. App. 3d 159 (Ill. App. Ct. 1976) (a deficient complaint does not entitle a party to make an offer of proof).