Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks ► [ Ссылка ]
Hewitt v. Hewitt | 77 Ill. 2d 49, 31 Ill.Dec. 827, 394 N.E.2d 1204 (1979)
There’s no question that couples are increasingly living together, and even starting families, without getting married. But with most states ceasing to recognize common law marriage, how are property rights determined if an unmarried couple splits? The nineteen seventy nine case of Hewitt versus Hewitt examines this question in the state of Illinois, which abolished common law marriage in nineteen oh five.
Robert Hewitt was a student at Grinnell College. He and Victoria, another Grinnell student, learned they were expecting a baby in June of nineteen sixty. Robert told Victoria they were husband and wife and would live together as such, sharing their lives, property, earnings, and future. They announced to their families they were married and carried on with their lives, holding themselves out as husband and wife. Robert went on to become a pediatric dentist, and the couple had three children. Victoria’s parents helped them out financially while Robert pursued his professional education. With Victoria’s help, Robert established his practice, and Victoria took care of the children. She also worked at his office and facilitated social and professional engagements that contributed to the success of his practice. Throughout their years together, Robert acquired a decent amount of property, some owned jointly with Victoria, and some separately. They carried on in this family like relationship until nineteen seventy five, when Victoria filed for divorce in trial court, seeking half the assets the couple had accumulated in their time together. Robert never challenged his obligation to provide child support.
The court dismissed Victoria’s divorce petition because the couple had never married. Victoria then filed an amended complaint, asserting she was entitled to half the assets based on contract law and Robert’s unjust enrichment. The court dismissed the amended complaint as well, stating that a valid marriage was required for such claims. Victoria appealed. The appellate court determined that, based on the express oral contract between the two, and because the couple had held themselves out as a married couple, Victoria was entitled to relief. The state supreme court granted leave to appeal.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: [ Ссылка ]
The Quimbee App features over 16,300 case briefs keyed to 223 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► [ Ссылка ]
Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: [ Ссылка ]
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here: Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► [ Ссылка ]
Quimbee Case Brief App ► [ Ссылка ]
Facebook ► [ Ссылка ]
Twitter ► [ Ссылка ]
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries
