This guest post is from Cameron Wall, Regent Law Family Law student:
One
would think the state of California and the state of Illinois, both of which
share a lengthy history of voting “blue,” would have a near synonymous
historical recognition of marriage- after all, it was only within five months’
time that both states legally recognized same-sex marriages as legal (Illinois
in November of 2013 and California in June of 2013). Despite similar rulings on
same-sex marriages, these heavyweight states, often toted as “champions of the
left,” quite fascinatingly, hold incredibly differing perspectives on the
recognition of marriage and property rights associated with marital contracts.
In
California, for example, the case Marvin
v. Marvin, 18 Cal.3d 660, 665 (1976), established state-wide precedent that
recognized marital property rights of couples that did not, in fact, possess a
legally recognized marriage at the time. This was a landmark case for the
people of California, as it recognized two individuals, who were not married
according to the letter of California law, as enjoying the same property rights
of those who were lawfully married. The Supreme Court of California reasoned
this was a just determination because, in reality, these individuals held an
implied marriage by contract- they acted like they were married, relied on each
other for support, orally agreed to combine their efforts and share in the
equity of their combined property, and lived together for nearly seven years.
The court therefore held that partners in non-marital relationships may, in
fact, bring claims of property division based on rights assigned by implied contracts,
ultimately siding with the plaintiff’s quantum meruit argument and definition
of marital rights under common law.
In
a surprise twist of events, as California began to liberally extend their
definition and recognition of marital rights, the Illinois courts stood stoic,
doubling down on the more conservative understanding and recognition of
marriage and marital property rights associated with marriage. For example, in
the landmark case Hewitt v. Hewitt,
77 Ill. 2d 49 (1979), property claims by unmarried couples who were living
together in a “marriage-like relationship” were held as invalid and
unenforceable. The court determined these pseudo-marriages (implied marriages
by contract) went against Illinois public policy, citing principles deeply
rooted within the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act, which
emphasized the preservation of marriage and explicitly rejected common-law
marriages (implied marriages by co-habitation).
All
in all, although it may seem like traditionally blue states may always vote the
same and honor other blue states laws/policies, history shows us that this is
not always the case, even with respect to hot-button topics like marriage
rights and fairness in the distribution of property resulting from that
particular state’s definition of marriage. Although Illinois and California
often vote similarly, enact similar laws, and similarly lean to the left, Hewitt still remains controlling law in
Illinois, and Marvin still remains
good law in California today.