In re Marriage of Kehoe, 2025 IL App (1st) 241270-U

Summary

Case Summary: In re Marriage of Kehoe, 2025 IL App (1st) 241270-U - A foreign property regime checkbox on your marriage certificate may feel like ironclad asset protection—until an Illinois court treats it as legally meaningless, as the First District just demonstrated in Kehoe. The ruling exposes a critical vulnerability for internationally married, high-net-worth individuals: without a separately executed agreement meeting Illinois contract requirements and documented mutual intent, that Italian, French, or German election offers no defense when your eight-figure estate hits the equitable distribution chopping block.

The opposing counsel is already on the back foot—and they don't even know it yet.

If you're a high-net-worth individual who got married in Italy, France, Germany, or any jurisdiction that requires you to elect a "property regime" at the altar, you need to understand something the First District just made crystal clear: that checkbox on your foreign marriage certificate is probably worthless in an Illinois divorce court.

In re Marriage of Kehoe, decided August 4, 2025, is a masterclass in what happens when sophisticated parties assume foreign legal formalities will protect their assets stateside. Spoiler: they won't—not without strategic planning that should have happened before the ink dried on that Atto di Matrimonio.

The Kehoe Setup: When Italian Paperwork Meets Illinois Reality

Here's the scenario: James Kehoe and Lilia Garavaglia married in Italy. Italian law required them to select a property regime—either "communion of property" (comunione dei beni) or "separation of assets" (separazione dei beni). They chose separation of assets, as many internationally mobile couples do.

Fast forward to divorce proceedings in Cook County. Kehoe's argument was elegant in theory: the Italian election constituted a binding agreement between the spouses, which should exclude certain property from the marital estate under the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act, specifically Section 503(a)(4), which excludes property acquired by agreement of the parties.

The trial court wasn't buying it. Neither was the First District on appeal.

The Legal Dissection: Why Administrative Elections Aren't Contracts

The appellate court's reasoning cuts to the bone of contract law fundamentals that every family law practitioner should have tattooed on their litigation strategy:

An administrative or mandatory foreign election is not automatically a contractual agreement under Illinois law.

The court permitted parol evidence to determine what the parties actually intended when they made that selection in Italy. And here's where Kehoe's case collapsed: there was no evidence—none—that both parties understood and agreed that checking "separation of assets" on their Italian marriage certificate was meant to function as a prenuptial agreement governing asset division in a future divorce.

The distinction matters enormously:


A statutory/administrative selection = complying with local marriage formalities
A contractual agreement = mutual assent to specific property rights and obligations upon dissolution


Without evidence of the latter, you have nothing but a foreign checkbox that Illinois courts will politely ignore when dividing your eight-figure estate.

The Foreign Law Trap: Prove It or Lose It

Kehoe's team submitted an Italian practitioner's affidavit explaining Italian property law. It wasn't enough. The court noted that foreign law must be pleaded and proved—Illinois courts don't take judicial notice of what Italian matrimonial statutes mean or how they operate.

But here's the deeper problem: even if you perfectly prove foreign law, you still need to establish that the parties intended to create contractual obligations enforceable in Illinois. The Italian affidavit could explain what "separazione dei beni" means under Italian law. It couldn't manufacture evidence that both spouses understood they were entering a binding property agreement for purposes of a potential U.S. divorce.

The Strategic Implications: What High-Net-Worth Clients Must Do Now

If you're advising clients with international marriage footprints—or if you're the client—here's the operational reality after Kehoe:

1. Foreign Property Regime Elections Are Not Prenuptial Agreements

Stop treating them as such. A selection made to comply with Italian, French, German, or other foreign marriage formalities will not automatically exclude property under IMDMA Section 503(a)(4). You need a separate, properly executed agreement that satisfies Illinois requirements for premarital or postnuptial contracts.

2. Execute a Jurisdictionally Cognizable Agreement—Before or After the Foreign Ceremony

If you marry abroad but have any connection to Illinois (residence, business interests, real property), prepare a prenuptial or postnuptial agreement that:


Explicitly addresses property division upon divorce
Demonstrates clear mutual assent and understanding
Complies with Illinois formalities for enforceability
Specifies choice of law provisions


The cost of drafting this agreement is negligible compared to the cost of litigating whether a foreign checkbox protects your private equity holdings.

3. Document Intent Contemporaneously

If clients insist on relying on foreign elections, create a contemporaneous written record—signed by both parties—confirming their understanding and intent that the foreign selection constitutes a binding property agreement. This won't guarantee enforceability, but it provides the evidentiary foundation Kehoe lacked.

4. Anticipate Parol Evidence Disputes

Courts will look behind the document to determine intent. This means your opponent will depose your client about what they understood, what was discussed, what legal advice they received, and whether they had any idea that Italian checkbox would govern a Chicago divorce. Prepare for this scrutiny from day one.

The Cyber-Legal Intersection: Discovery Leverage You're Missing

Here's where my practice areas converge in ways opposing counsel rarely anticipates: when foreign property elections fail, the fight shifts to characterizing and valuing assets. And in that fight, digital evidence becomes decisive.

Consider what happens when one spouse claims certain assets were "separate property" acquired before marriage or through inheritance:


Email metadata establishes when financial discussions occurred
Cloud storage forensics reveals hidden accounts and transfers
Cryptocurrency wallet analysis traces assets the other side thinks are invisible
Device forensics recovers "deleted" communications about asset concealment


A spouse who was sloppy with their digital hygiene—storing financial documents on shared cloud accounts, discussing asset protection strategies over unencrypted email, failing to secure cryptocurrency holdings—has handed you a roadmap to their entire financial picture.

Cyber negligence is leverage in discovery. When the foreign agreement defense collapses, the digital trail becomes your primary weapon.

The Comity Question: Don't Assume Reciprocity

Kehoe also implicates comity principles that sophisticated practitioners must address early. Illinois courts will generally respect foreign judgments and legal instruments—but respect doesn't mean automatic enforcement, especially when the foreign instrument doesn't satisfy Illinois contract law requirements.

If you're representing a client with assets or litigation exposure in multiple jurisdictions, engage choice-of-law counsel before the divorce petition is filed. The forum you choose—and the law that governs—can determine whether your client's foreign property election has any teeth.

The Bottom Line: Assumptions Are Expensive

In re Marriage of Kehoe stands for a simple proposition that should terrify anyone who married abroad without proper planning: mandatory foreign formalities are not voluntary contractual agreements, and Illinois courts will not pretend otherwise.

The parties in Kehoe presumably believed they had structured their property rights when they selected "separation of assets" in Italy. They were wrong. That belief cost them the certainty they thought they had purchased—and subjected their assets to Illinois equitable distribution principles they never anticipated.

If you have clients with international marriage instruments, foreign property elections, or cross-border asset structures, the time to address enforceability gaps is now—not when you're standing in a Cook County courtroom explaining why an Italian checkbox should control the division of a multi-million dollar estate.

The opposition is already losing. They just don't know it yet. Make sure you're not the one caught unprepared.



Your assets. Your strategy. Your advantage.

If you're facing a high-net-worth divorce with international complications—or if you need to structure agreements that will actually hold up in Illinois courts—book a consultation now. The other side is already making mistakes. Let's make sure you're not.

Full Opinion (PDF): Download the full opinion

Written by Jonathan D. Steele

Chicago divorce attorney with cybersecurity certifications (Security+, CEH, ISC2). Illinois Super Lawyers Rising Star 2016-2025.

Free Consultation

For more insights, read our Divorce Decoded blog.