Pending NJ Supreme Court Palimony Case May Affect Over 17,000 Couples

ROSELAND, N.J. - Oct. 10, 2013 - PRLog -- The New Jersey Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case that could potentially open the floodgates to thousands of palimony appeals as well as re-write the handbook on how cohabitating couples should legally protect themselves.  The case involves a 55-year-old woman who is seeking to reverse an Appeals court ruling denying her financial support and relief due to a 2010 amended statute requiring palimony agreements to be in writing.

Beginning in 1998, for the thirteen years that they were in a cohabitating relationship, and while the amended law was not yet in effect, William Ross, through words and actions, promised to take care of Beverly Maeker for the rest of her life. However that promise was never formalized into a written palimony contract. Hence, the question before the court is whether verbal agreements made prior to the law’s enactment remain valid or whether such contracts no longer apply.

The 2010 amendment to N.J.S.A. 25:1(h) states that promises made in a cohabitating relationship are not binding unless an agreement is in writing and done so with the advice of independent counsel. In this particular case, Ross provided full financial support to Ms. Maeker, paid for her son’s college education, purchased horses for her, named her as the sole beneficiary in his will and granted her Powers of Attorney in the event of his incapacity or death. However, following the termination of their relationship in July, 2012, Ross ceased providing financial support.

Maeker then successfully petitioned the Superior Court of New Jersey, Somerset County to mandate that Ross continue providing funds for reasonable living expenses. That decision was overturned in February, 2013 when the Appeals Court determined that the amended law could in fact, be applied retroactively.

Maeker attorney, Angelo Sarno of Snyder & Sarno, disagrees. In petitioning the state Supreme Court to hear this case, he claims that the Appellate Division erred in its interpretation of the January 2010 Amendment, claiming that to apply the statute retroactively effectively “bars this Plaintiff and an entire class of litigants, from enforcing a promise of lifetime support originating from a longstanding marital-type relationship.”

The New Jersey Chapter of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers concurs, stating in its brief to the Court that the “interpretation espoused by the Appellate Division would preclude any relief whatsoever to a supported party who is abandoned, after even decades of living together, after raising children together, or after the parties intertwined their finances and their daily routines over what might be a lifetime together.” It further states, “The outcome of this case will have far-reaching implications for every unmarried cohabitant dating back to this Court’s recognition of palimony…(1979).”

According to defendant’s counsel, the amended statute’s original purpose was “to curtail the abuse of palimony claims by requiring a written agreement.”

Regardless of how the Supreme Court decides, its ruling will have broad implications for past and current cohabitating couples living in New Jersey.