In re Marriage of Kehoe

- Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Kehoe, No. 1-24-1270, 2025 IL App (1st) 241270-U (Ill. App. Ct. Aug. 4, 2025) (Rule 23 order). Petitioner-Appellant: James Kehoe. Respondent-Appellee: Lilia Garavaglia.

- Key legal issues
1) Whether the parties’ election of the “separation of assets” regime in their Italian Atto di Matrimonio (required by Italian law for marriages in Italy) constituted a binding agreement excluded from Illinois “marital property” under 750 ILCS 5/503(a)(4) (IMDMA).
2) Whether parol evidence could show a meeting of the minds that the Italian declaration was intended to be a contractual allocation of property on divorce (or an enforceable premarital/postnuptial agreement under Illinois law).
3) The evidentiary burden for proving foreign law and contractual intent.

- Holding / outcome
The First District affirmed the trial court: the Atto di Matrimonio election did not constitute an enforceable contract between the spouses for purposes of excluding property under IMDMA §503(a)(4). The appellate court agreed there was no meeting of the minds to treat the mandatory Italian selection as a contract governing asset disposition on divorce; the trial court’s directed finding for respondent was affirmed.

- Significant legal reasoning (concise)
- The court emphasized that an administrative/mandatory foreign election made in a marriage instrument is not automatically a contractual agreement under Illinois law; enforceability requires proof that the parties intended contractual obligations regarding property upon divorce.
- The trial court permissibly received parol evidence to determine intent, and after the evidentiary hearing found the evidence insufficient to establish mutual assent to a contractual allocation of assets.
- Evidence submitted (including an Italian practitioner’s affidavit describing Italian law) did not overcome the lack of demonstrated intent in the record that the Atto was meant to function as a premarital/postnuptial agreement enforceable in Illinois. The opinion also notes that foreign law must be pleaded and proved (no judicial notice).

- Practice implications for family attorneys
- Do not assume mandatory foreign property-regime elections (e.g., selections on foreign marriage certificates) will be treated as enforceable premarital/postnuptial agreements in Illinois. Prove affirmative mutual intent to create contractual property rights at divorce.
- When clients marry abroad but may later litigate in Illinois, prepare a clearly executed, jurisdictionally cognizable prenuptial or postnuptial agreement specifying property division and signed in compliance with applicable formalities.
- If relying on foreign law/elections, plead and prove that law with competent translation and expert proof; anticipate parol‑evidence disputes and that courts will scrutinize whether the instrument reflects contractual assent, not merely a statutory/administrative selection.
- Consider choice-of-law, comity, and early jurisdictional counsel to avoid enforceability gaps demonstrated by Kehoe.