394 N.E.2d 1204 (Ill. 1979)
In June 1960, while students at Grinnell College in Iowa, Victoria Hewitt became pregnant by Robert Hewitt.1 Robert told Victoria that they were husband and wife and would live as such without a formal ceremony, and that he would share his life, future, earnings, and property with her.2 The parties announced to their parents that they were married and held themselves out as husband and wife thereafter.3
Victoria devoted her efforts to Robert's professional education in pedodontia, obtaining financial assistance from her parents, and assisted in his career by placing her payroll checks into a common fund.4 Three children were born to the parties during their relationship, which lasted until 1975. By that time, Robert earned over $80,000 a year and had accumulated substantial property, some held jointly and some separately.5
Victoria initially filed a complaint for divorce, but at a hearing on Robert's motion to dismiss, she admitted that no marriage ceremony had taken place and that the parties had never obtained a marriage license.6 The trial court dismissed the complaint, finding no ceremonial or common law marriage existed, and directed Victoria to make her complaint more definite regarding the property.7
Victoria then filed an amended complaint alleging an express oral contract to share property, an implied contract from the parties' conduct, a constructive trust based on fraudulent assurances, and unjust enrichment from her detrimental reliance.8 The trial court dismissed the amended complaint, finding that Illinois law and public policy require such claims to be based on a valid marriage.9 The appellate court reversed, and the Supreme Court of Illinois granted leave to appeal.10
Whether Victoria Hewitt, who lived with Robert Hewitt from 1960 to 1975 in an unmarried family-like relationship to which three children were born, may recover an equal share of the profits and properties accumulated by the parties during that period?11
Agreements in consideration of future illicit cohabitation between the parties are void.12 The Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act embodies a policy of strengthening and preserving the integrity of marriage by providing procedures for solemnization and registration of marriage.13 Common law marriages contracted in this State after June 30, 1905 are invalid.14 Judicial recognition of property rights between unmarried cohabitants would contravene that policy.15
No. The parties lived together from 1960 to 1975 without a valid marriage ceremony or license, holding themselves out as husband and wife while having three children. Victoria's amended complaint rests on promises and conduct arising directly from that relationship, including her contributions to Robert's education and career in reliance on his assurances to share property.16 Because the alleged agreement was founded on their illicit cohabitation, it falls within the traditional rule of illegality announced in Wallace v. Rappleye and cannot be enforced. Enforcement would also undermine the legislative judgment in the Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act that favors formal marriage over private arrangements that substitute for it.
Victoria Hewitt's claims for an equal share of the accumulated property are unenforceable because they contravene the public policy disfavoring the grant of mutually enforceable property rights to knowingly unmarried cohabitants.17