Case Update (4 Aug 2025): In re. Marriage Kehoe; Property Regime designation for Italian marriage did not have meeting of minds to be a contract impacting future division of property

The parties are spouses. Wife is an Italian citizen and Husband is an Irish citizen. They were married in Italy in July 2000. Prior to their marriage, they both resided in Italy and worked for a U.S.-based employer. A few months before their wedding, the Husband accepted a temporary reassignment to a position with the employer in the USA. In April - a mere 3 months before the wedding - Husband relocated to Connecticut. Wife joined him in Connecticut a few days after their wedding in July 2000. They have since resided in various places throughout the USA and in other countries, but have never resided in Italy since the date of their wedding. Both parties acknowledge that when you marry in Italy, you must choose a marital property regime to apply to your future financial affairs. Apparently there are 2 different property regimes. The first is a “community of assets”, which is the default if the parties make no election. The second is a “separation of assets”, which the parties must pro-actively designate. The first would have the effect of dividing marital property equally. The second would have the effect of each spouse keeping his or her property. Here, the parties elected a separation of assets, which was stated in their Atto di Matrimonio.

At the time of their divorce, they were residing in Illinois. In 2022, the Husband filed for dissolution of marriage in Cook County, Illinois. On March 14, 2023, he filed an amended petition. In this amended petition, he referenced the parties’ Atto di Matrimonio, and their separation of assets designation. He argued that the court should enforce this “agreement” as to their property under Illinois law or other applicable authority. The Wife filed a response, and denied that it was a binding, enforceable agreement. On May 12, 2023, the Husband sought declaratory judgment, which is the basis of the appeal herein. In response to this, the Wife argued that “the Atto di Matrimonio was merely the parties’ Italian marriage certificate and was not any form of a contract or agreement between them. It did not include the most basis aspects of an enforceable contract, including any provisions governing the parties’ property rights upon divorce. It was also unenforceable in that it failed to comport with the requirements of the Illinois Uniform Premarital Agreement Act.” Husband’s Italian law expert stated that this designation is a valid agreement under Italian law, and that it is different from a marriage certificate. She also stated that there was no jurisdiction over their divorce in Italy, and the parties could have, but did not, select a choice of law to apply to their property division. The court, in setting a hearing on the Husband’s request for declaratory judgment, asked for parol evidence as to whether there was a meeting of the minds between the spouses when they selected this property regime.

At the hearing, Husband shared his understanding of their agreement when they designated the property regime, including his fluency in Italian, his prior conversations with his now-Wife about the property regimes, their respective understanding of the other’s assets, the wide range of cities they resided in during their marriage, but that he never spoke to any lawyer about the potential future validity of this property regime. The Wife testified about her knowledge of the property regime she selected, of her now-Husband’s assets and income, and her intention to immediately leave Italy after the wedding. The trial court credited Wife’s testimony as more credible, and denied the Husband’s motion, concluding that the marital property regime - separation of assets - that the parties designated, was not an agreement to be enforced. Husband appealed, and the court examined whether there was a meeting of the minds at the time they designated their property regime, and affirmed the trial court, concluding there was not. The court found that the parties were required to select a marital property regime to get married in Italy, and had no intention of then living in Italy after marriage. Meeting of the minds is a prerequisite before assessing the enforceability of the “agreement” under Illinois law.