Blumenthal v. Brewer

Decision Date19 December 2014
Docket NumberNo. 1–13–2250.,1–13–2250.
Citation24 N.E.3d 168
PartiesJane E. BLUMENTHAL, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Eileen M. BREWER, Defendant–Appellant.
CourtUnited States Appellate Court of Illinois

Angelika Kuehn, of Angelika Kuehn Law Offices, of Oak Park, and Shannon Minter, pro hac vice, Amy Whelan, pro hac vice, and Cathy Sakimura, pro hac vice, all of National Center for Lesbian Rights, of San Francisco, California, for appellant.

Reuben A. Bernick, of Chicago, for appellee.

John A. Knight, of Robert Baldwin Foundation of ACLU, Inc., and Camilla B. Taylor, of Lambda Legal Defense & Education Fund, Inc., both of Chicago, and Nancy D. Polikoff, of American University Washington College of Law, of Washington, D.C., for amici curiae.

OPINION

Justice McBRIDE delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

¶ 1 In 2010, Jane E. Blumenthal filed suit to partition a Chicago home she owned with Eileen M. Brewer, her former domestic partner of 26 years. Brewer counterclaimed for various remedies, including to receive sole title to the property so that the couple's overall assets would be equalized after she stayed at home with the couple's three children while Blumenthal was the family's breadwinner. The trial court dismissed Brewer's counterclaims as factually deficient, relying upon a 1979 decision, Hewitt v. Hewitt, 77 Ill.2d 49, 31 Ill.Dec. 827, 394 N.E.2d 1204 (1979). In Hewitt, the court rejected on public policy grounds a woman's suit to divide assets she accumulated with a man during a 15–year relationship in which they lived together, had three children together, but never married. Brewer appeals, primarily contending that Hewitt has been implicitly overruled by subsequent legislation favorable to same-sex domestic partnerships. American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois and Lambda Legal Defense & Education Fund, Inc., have filed an amici curiae brief in support of Brewer.

¶ 2 When a party presents a motion to dismiss a pleading or count as factually deficient, the court determines whether there are actually sufficient allegations that, if proven, could entitle the complainant to relief. In re Marriage of Centioli, 335 Ill.App.3d 650, 269 Ill.Dec. 814, 781 N.E.2d 611 (2002) ; 735 ILCS 5/2–615 (West 2010). A motion to dismiss for factual insufficiency is governed by section 2–615 of the Code of Civil Procedure. HPI Health Care Services, Inc. v. Mt. Vernon Hospital, Inc., 172 Ill.App.3d 718, 720, 122 Ill.Dec. 725, 527 N.E.2d 97, 100 (1988) ; 735 ILCS 5/2–615 (West 2010). The court must accept all well-pled facts in the complaint as true and draw reasonable inferences from those facts that are favorable to the complainant. HPI Health Care Services, 172 Ill.App.3d at 720–21, 122 Ill.Dec. 725, 527 N.E.2d at 100; Centioli, 335 Ill.App.3d 650, 269 Ill.Dec. 814, 781 N.E.2d 611. Because the issue presented is a question of law, a reviewing court applies the de novo standard when addressing a dismissal pursuant to section 2–615. Centioli, 335 Ill.App.3d 650, 269 Ill.Dec. 814, 781 N.E.2d 611; 735 ILCS 5/2–615 (West 2010).

¶ 3 The pleading at issue here relates the following. Brewer and Blumenthal became domestic partners in 1981 or 1982, while they were pursuing graduate studies at the University of Chicago. At no point during their ensuing relationship were same-sex couples legally entitled to marry in Illinois. The pair, however, exchanged rings as symbols of their lifelong commitment to each other and presented themselves to their families and friends as a committed couple.

¶ 4 Brewer subsequently attained a law degree from Harvard Law School and Blumenthal attained a medical degree from an undisclosed school.

¶ 5 After law school, Brewer gave birth to a child in 1990 and a second child in 1992. Blumenthal gave birth to a child in 1993. The couple gave all three children the same last name.

¶ 6 To best care for their children, the couple deliberately allocated their work and family responsibilities. Brewer stayed home for a while as the children's primary caregiver and then pursued employment in the public sector where she had regular work hours and no travel requirements. And, as the stay-at-home parent, Brewer spent the greater amount of time in other domestic tasks, such as supervising home repairs, grocery shopping, and paying the household bills. This arrangement enabled Blumenthal to devote time to her medical career and become the family's primary breadwinner. “As a consequence of the allocation of their respective responsibilities in the family following the birth of their children, Blumenthal came to earn two to three times as much annually as Brewer”; however, the couple comingled their assets throughout their 26–year relationship. One such asset was the real estate that was central to Blumenthal's partition claim and Brewer's counterclaim. The women had jointly purchased a home on Kimbark Avenue in Chicago's Kenwood–Hyde Park neighborhood in 1999, when their children were ages six, seven, and nine. They chose to reside in this area due to the proximity of good schooling that was supportive of the children of same-sex domestic partners. They also jointly-purchased investment properties outside of Illinois. In addition, between 2000 and 2008, physician Blumenthal purchased an ownership interest in a six-doctor medical practice. On information and belief, the funds for this investment came from the couple's joint account. Blumenthal continues to practice medicine with that group of physicians. In 2002, attorney Brewer was first elected as a judge in the circuit court of Cook County and she continues in that position. “It was [the couple's] understanding that Brewer would not suffer any financial disadvantage from the way in which [they] allocated their parenting and career responsibilities” and “it was [always] their practice to share equally the same home, food, automobiles, vacations, vacation property, and to the extent they could, savings and investments.”

¶ 7 The couple also took legal steps because of their lifelong commitment. In 2002, they went through the procedures to cross-adopt their three children, including undergoing a home study. Later that same year, the circuit court of Cook County granted their jointly-filed cross-adoption petition. In 2002, the Cook County board of commissioners created the “Domestic Partner Registry” so that same-sex couples in Chicago and suburban Cook County could formally document their partnerships. The local ordinance which created the registry stated in relevant part: “Our society has created diverse living arrangements and an expanded concept of the family unit”; “Many persons today live as families in enduring, committed relationships other than legal marriages”; “The County of Cook has an interest in supporting all caring, committed and responsible family units”; “The County also recognizes that it is in the public interest for persons in committed relationships and who share common households to be able to register those relationships formally”; “Over 5,000 companies, foundations, unions, and nonprofit organizations have domestic partnership benefit programs”; Cook County would be providing a service to those companies, foundations, unions and non-profits in Cook County by creating an official depository of information with a government agency”; and “A government-issued certificate of registered domestic partnership makes it easier for small businesses to provide benefits to all types of families.” Cook County Ordinance No. 03–O–18 (approved July 1, 2003). Blumenthal and Brewer added their names to the county roll in 2003. In registering, they signed an affidavit stating in part,

We, the undersigned, being duly sworn, do declare that on or before January in the year 1981 we agreed to live as domestic partners, and that we have so lived since that time. We further state that we have since that time held ourselves out to be each other's sole domestic partner and that neither of us is married. To fulfill the requirements established by Cook County for benefits coverage we further attest that: * * * We are each other's sole domestic partner, responsible for each other's common welfare * * *. [Also, we jointly own a residence, and have a joint credit card and joint checking account, and Blumenthal is the primary beneficiary of the will executed by Cook County employee Brewer.]1

¶ 8 In 2005, when Illinois neither provided for same-sex marriage nor recognized out-of-state same-sex marriages, Blumenthal and Brewer took out a marriage license in Massachusetts. They did not, however, marry in that state.

¶ 9 In January 2008, when the children were teenagers, Blumenthal unilaterally ended her domestic partnership with Brewer by vacating the family home. The records of this court indicate that in a separate action, the former partners resolved issues of custody, child support, and responsibility for expenses such as the children's college costs. In re Custody of J.M.B., 2013 IL App (1st) 122142–U, 2013 WL 6823107. By 2011, all three children were emancipated adults.

¶ 10 Blumenthal contributed some of the costs of maintaining the residence in 2008, but as of January 2009, Brewer became solely responsible for the property's upkeep and its mortgage payments, real estate taxes, and insurance. Between 2008 and 2013, Brewer spent in excess of $215,000 on the property. She also contributed at least 15 hours per week of her personal time to the property's care. Brewer contributed more money than Blumenthal despite the fact that Blumenthal's net worth, without including inheritances, exceeded and exceeds Brewer's net worth by more than $500,000. Furthermore, due to the disproportionate time and attention that Blumenthal was able to give to her career during the relationship, Blumenthal has not only a valuable medical practice, but also more income and savings than Brewer.

¶ 11 Based on these allegations, Brewer seeks the imposition of a constructive trust over the Kimbark Avenue residence...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Blumenthal v. Brewer
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • August 18, 2016
    ...remanded the matter to the circuit court to consider additional arguments raised by the parties. 2014 IL App (1st) 132250, ¶ 40, 388 Ill.Dec. 260, 24 N.E.3d 168.¶ 6 This court allowed Blumenthal's petition for leave to appeal. Ill. S. Ct. R. 315 (eff. July 1, 2013). We also granted the Amer......
  • Tummelson v. White
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • December 30, 2015
    ...by local domestic relations law.” Restatement (Third) of Restitution and Unjust Enrichment § 28 (2011).See also Blumenthal v. Brewer, 2014 IL App (1st) 132250, ¶ 36, 388 Ill.Dec. 260, 24 N.E.3d 168 (quoting Restatement (Third) of Restitution and Unjust Enrichment § 28 (2011) ).¶ 29 Before a......
  • Freedman v. Muller
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • June 30, 2015
    ...that several jurisdictions have specifically criticized or rejected Hewitt. Freedman also argues that Blumenthal v. Brewer, 2014 IL App (1st) 132250, 388 Ill.Dec. 260, 24 N.E.3d 168, appeal allowed, No. 118781, 391 Ill.Dec. 792, 31 N.E.3d 767 (Ill. Mar. 25, 2015), which Freedman states repu......
  • A & E Auto Body, Inc. v. 21st Century Centennial Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida
    • August 17, 2015
    ...than merely, as Plaintiffs would have it, "a retention of benefits for which the Plaintiffs expect to be paid." See Blumenthal v. Brewer, 2014 IL App (1st) 132250, P12, 388 Ill.Dec. 260, 24 N.E.3d 168 (Ill.App.Ct. 1st Dist.2014) ("In the Illinois courts, in order to state a cause of action ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Cohabitation Worldwide Today
    • United States
    • Georgia State University College of Law Georgia State Law Reviews No. 35-2, December 2018
    • Invalid date
    ...1225 (Haw. 2014).77. Wynkoop v. Stratthaus, 136 A.3d 1180, 1194 (Vt. 2016).78. Bowman, supra note 64, at 126. 79. Blumenthal v. Brewer, 24 N.E.3d 168, 183 (Ill. App. Ct. 2014).80. Blumenthal v. Brewer, 69 N.E.3d 834, 860 (Ill. 2016).81. Id. at 840.82. Id. at 852.83. Id.84. Id.85. Id. at 839......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT