Oral Palimony Agreements Enforceable If Made Before 2010

Last week, in the case of Maeker v. Ross, the New Jersey Supreme Court held that any oral agreements or promises to provide lifetime financial support to a non-married long term paramour prior to the year 2010 may give rise to an action for palimony. In 2010, the New Jersey legislature changed the law to amend the statute of frauds, N.J.S.A. 25:1-5(h), which prohibited the enforcement of oral palimony agreements. The law directs that "a promise by one party to a non-marital personal relationship to provide support or other consideration for the other party, either during the course of such relationship or after its termination" must be in writing, signed by the parties and with the advice of independent counsel. In the aforementioned case, the Supreme Court of New Jersey had to render a decision as to whether or not the statue applies retroactively to palimony agreements made before the statute was amended. In Maeker, William Ross moved to rely on the language of N.J.S.A. 25:1-5(h) to dismiss Beverly Maeker's action to compel the enforcement of an oral palimony agreement between the parties. The parties' relationship lasted for thirteen (13) years and although they never married, they lived together for the vast majority of that time. During the duration of their relationship, Ross paid for all of Maeker's living expenses and made many promises that he would continue to take care of her. Based upon these promises, Maeker left her 20-year career in architectural glass. In 2011, Ross dissolved the parties' relationship and ceased his financial support of Maeker. Subsequently, Maeker filed a Complaint to enforce the parties' oral palimony agreement. Ross argued that because the agreement was never reduced to writing or signed by the parties, the statute of frauds prevented the agreement from being enforceable in court. The trial court denied Ross's motion to dismiss, but the Appellate Division reversed the decision of the lower court holding that the statute of frauds prevented Maeker's claim from being successful. This month, the New Jersey Supreme Court held that the 2010 amendment to the statute of frauds was not designed to make oral palimony agreements created before 2010 unenforceable because the state legislature understands that the court system does not retroactively apply statutes and because there was no discernible legislative intent that the amendment was to be applied retroactively, therefore the Court declined to apply the statute in this case. Written agreements are an important way to protect your security and assets in the event that a relationship dissolves. Due to the potentially complex nature of such agreements, if you would like to enforce or establish a palimony agreement to protect your rights it is critical that you seek out the advice of an experienced attorney before proceeding. For more information about palimony agreements, prenuptial agreements, divorce, alimony, or other family law matters in New Jersey visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes and is in no way intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

New Jersey Palimony Agreements Must Be In Writing

According to a recent New Jersey Appellate Division decision, palimony agreements must be memorialized in writing if they are to be legally enforceable and the law requiring such is to be retroactively applied. The term "palimony" refers to the support that two unmarried people, who have lived together, promise to pay to each other upon the dissolution of their relationship. The status and availability of palimony throughout the United States varies dramatically from state to state. Some states will enforce palimony agreements other states will not. Further, of the states that do recognize the validity of palimony agreements, the rules that govern their enforcement are not uniformly applied across the states. Traditionally, in New Jersey palimony agreements could be either oral or written agreements to be legally enforceable. The 1979 case, Kozlowski v. Kozlowski, was the foundational precedent for these cases and had remained good law for decades. In 2010, the New Jersey legislature passed a law, N.J.S.A. 25:1-5, effectively amending the Statute of Frauds, which then mandated that palimony agreements be memorialized in writing. This shift in the law may have been caused by a shift in social culture. Over the last two decades, more and more couples have engaged in long term relationships that do not result in a marriage or civil union. Since the relationship dynamics have changed so much in our society, it may have proven difficult for a court to enforce an oral agreement for relationship configurations that appeared to be ever-changing. Therefore, it seemed natural for the law to mandate that palimony agreements be written as a means to minimize confusion and ambiguity over relationship statuses. On February 4, 2013, the Appellate Division rendered a decision in Maeker v. Ross that considered the issue of whether N.J.S.A. 25:1-5 could be applied to palimony agreements that were instituted before 2010. In Maeker, the litigants were engaged in a 10-year long relationship, in which the male partner supported the female. Their relationship ended in 2011 and Ms. Maeker sued Mr. Ross for palimony. The couple did not have a written agreement. N.J.S.A. 25:1-5, was codified in 2010 and required that palimony agreements be in writing in order to be enforceable. The trial court found that based upon the length of the relationship, the lawsuit could proceed. The Appellate Court disagreed and reversed the prior court's opinion, essentially holding that all palimony agreements must be in writing and that the law should be applied retroactively. The decision has been appealed to the New Jersey Supreme Court. For more information about palimony, divorce, civil union dissolution, alimony, child support, custody or other family law matters in New Jersey visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes and in no way intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

Palimony Claims Under NJ Laws

Palimony is not determined by when the contract is made but rather when the claim is made. If you think you or someone you love is cared for under a palimony agreement, you should be aware of changes that have taken place in the law and how they affect any agreement you may have. In 2010, the law regarding palimony agreements changed to require a written agreement entered into with the assistance of counsel. Since that time, many individuals have attempted to enforce palimony agreements which came into existence prior to the effective date of the new requirements. In Maeker v. Ross, the NJ Appellate Division held that the palimony claim does not arise until the breach of the agreement or death of the promissor, it is the date on which the claim to enforce the agreement is filed which controls the validity of the agreement. In Maeker v. Ross, Maeker did not work during the parties 13 year relationship. Ross supported her, paid for her son's college education, kept her in a luxurious lifestyle by typical standards and allegedly promised her lifetime support. Maeker had power of attorney over Ross' affairs and both executrix and primary beneficiary under his will. Due to the timing of the parties' breakup, on or about July 2011, the Somerset County Superior Court Judge Thomas Miller decided the Legislature did not express a clear intent to terminate actions which arose in close proximity to the law's effective date. Miller reasoned that inequity would arise by the release of someone making a promise 30 years ago by a statutory change today. The Appellate Division disagreed with Miller, holding a palimony agreement to be a contract like any other and subject to interpretation on the same basis. The Appellate Division found Ross and Maeker had an 18 month period from the enactment of the law to the filing of the complaint to enter into an agreement enforceable under the new statute. Although Ross and Maeker did originally have the intent to enter into such an agreement based on their actions and lifestyle, at the time the requirements changed for a valid palimony agreement changed, the parties' relationship had clearly deteriorated to the point it is probable Ross would not have entered into an agreement under the terms of the current law. If you think you or someone you love is cared for under a palimony agreement or entering into a palimony agreement, you should consult experienced legal counsel to insure your rights are protected. For more information regarding palimony, alimony, child support or other family law matters in New Jersey visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and is not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.