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 - The Illinois First District's decision in In re Marriage of Kehoe establishes that a mandatory property-regime election on a foreign marriage certificate does not automatically constitute an enforceable agreement under the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act, requiring instead proof of mutual assent and contractual intent. The ruling emphasizes that parties seeking to exclude property from the marital estate under 750 ILCS 5/503(a)(4) must demonstrate that both spouses understood and intended the foreign instrument to govern property division upon divorce, with foreign law needing to be properly pleaded and proved through competent evidence.

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

If you're a family law practitioner in Illinois who's been assuming that a foreign property-regime election automatically translates into an enforceable agreement under the IMDMA, the First District just handed you a wake-up call. In re Marriage of Kehoe is the kind of decision that separates attorneys who prepare for international complexity from those who get blindsided by it.

Let me break down what happened, why it matters, and how you leverage this ruling—whether you're protecting assets or pursuing them.

The Facts: An Italian Marriage Certificate Is Not a Prenup

James Kehoe and Lilia Garavaglia married in Italy. Italian law required them to select a property regime on their Atto di Matrimonio—their marriage certificate. They elected "separation of assets," which is one of the standard options under Italian matrimonial law.

Fast forward to divorce proceedings in Illinois. Kehoe argued that this election constituted a binding agreement that should exclude certain property from the marital estate under 750 ILCS 5/503(a)(4). That statute carves out property "excluded by valid agreement of the parties" from the definition of marital property.

The trial court disagreed. So did the First District on appeal.

The Holding: Administrative Elections ≠ Contractual Agreements

The appellate court affirmed the trial court's directed finding for the respondent. The core reasoning is surgical:


    
A mandatory foreign election is not automatically a contract. The fact that Italian law required the parties to select a property regime doesn't mean they intended to create contractual obligations governing asset disposition upon divorce in Illinois.
    
Mutual assent must be proven. The court permitted parol evidence to determine whether the parties had a meeting of the minds. They didn't. The evidence—including an Italian practitioner's affidavit—failed to establish that either party intended the Atto to function as a prenuptial or postnuptial agreement.
    
Foreign law must be pleaded and proved. Illinois courts don't take judicial notice of foreign law. You must establish it through competent evidence, including expert testimony and certified translations.


The directed finding stood. The property-regime election had no teeth in Illinois.

Why This Matters: The Enforceability Gap

This case exposes a critical vulnerability for clients who marry abroad—particularly high-net-worth individuals who assume that foreign legal instruments will travel seamlessly across jurisdictions.

They don't.

The Kehoe court made clear that Illinois will scrutinize whether a foreign instrument reflects genuine contractual assent, not merely compliance with a statutory or administrative requirement. If you can't demonstrate that both parties understood and intended the document to govern property division upon divorce, you're holding a piece of paper with no legal force in Cook County.

The Parol Evidence Problem

Note what the trial court did: it opened the door to parol evidence to assess intent. This is both an opportunity and a minefield. If you're arguing for enforceability, you need testimony, contemporaneous communications, and documentary evidence showing the parties discussed and agreed to the property implications. If you're arguing against enforceability, you attack the absence of that evidence—and you emphasize that checking a box on a foreign marriage certificate is not the same as negotiating a prenuptial agreement with independent counsel.

Strategic Implications: Offense and Defense

If You're Protecting Assets

Do not rely on foreign property-regime elections. Period. If your client is marrying abroad—or has already married abroad—and you want enforceable property protections in Illinois, execute a separate agreement that complies with Illinois formalities for premarital or postnuptial agreements. That means:


    
Written agreement signed by both parties
    
Full financial disclosure
    
Independent counsel for each party (or documented waiver)
    
No duress, fraud, or unconscionability
    
Clear, specific terms regarding property division


The Kehoe decision is a reminder that comity has limits. Illinois courts will apply Illinois law to determine enforceability, and they will demand proof of contractual intent that a foreign administrative selection simply doesn't provide.

If You're Pursuing Assets

This case is a roadmap for attacking foreign property instruments. Challenge the opposing party to prove:


    
The foreign law itself (through expert testimony and certified translations)
    
That both parties understood the legal implications of the election at the time
    
That there was mutual assent to treat the instrument as a binding contract governing divorce
    
That the instrument meets Illinois standards for enforceability


If they can't clear those hurdles—and Kehoe suggests they often won't—the property stays in the marital estate.

The Tech Angle: Digital Evidence in Intent Disputes

When parol evidence becomes central to the dispute, digital communications are gold. Emails, text messages, and even metadata from document creation can establish (or undermine) claims about what the parties intended when they signed a foreign instrument.

This is where cyber negligence becomes leverage in discovery. If the opposing party claims they understood the Atto di Matrimonio to be a binding property agreement, demand their communications from that period. If they've deleted relevant messages, that's a spoliation issue. If they've been careless with their digital footprint, you'll find inconsistencies.

Conversely, if you're defending against such claims, audit your client's digital history before discovery. Know what's out there. Prepare for what the other side will find.

Practice Checklist: International Marriages and Property Agreements

For clients who marry abroad or have foreign property instruments:


    
Audit existing documents. Identify any foreign elections, declarations, or agreements that might be asserted as property agreements.
    
Assess enforceability under Illinois law. Apply the Kehoe framework: Is there evidence of mutual assent to contractual property obligations?
    
Execute a compliant agreement. If the foreign instrument is insufficient, prepare a prenuptial or postnuptial agreement that satisfies Illinois requirements.
    
Preserve evidence of intent. Document discussions, retain communications, and create a contemporaneous record of what the parties understood and agreed.
    
Plead and prove foreign law. If you're relying on foreign law, retain qualified experts and prepare certified translations. Don't assume the court will figure it out.
    
Anticipate choice-of-law disputes. Address jurisdiction and applicable law early in the case to avoid procedural ambushes.


The Bottom Line

In re Marriage of Kehoe is a cautionary tale for practitioners and clients who assume international legal instruments will be honored without scrutiny in Illinois. The First District has made clear that mandatory foreign elections are not contracts, that intent must be proved, and that foreign law is not self-executing.

If you're handling a case with international elements—or if you're advising clients before they marry abroad—this decision demands attention. The enforceability gap is real, and the consequences are measured in millions.

Your opposition may not have read this case yet. That's their problem.

If you're facing a complex property dispute involving foreign instruments, or if you need to structure enforceable agreements for an international marriage, book a consult now. The other side is already losing—they just haven't realized it.

Full Opinion (PDF): Download the full opinion

Written by Jonathan D. Steele

Chicago divorce attorney with cybersecurity certifications (Security+, ISC2 CC, Google Cybersecurity Professional Certificate). Illinois Super Lawyers Rising Star 2016-2025.

Free Case Assessment

For more insights, read our Divorce Decoded blog.