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.

Waiver of Juveniles to Adult Court is Now Subject to Higher Level of Scrutiny in NJ

Prosecutors showing probable cause that a juvenile committed certain enumerated violent and drug related offenses may waive juvenile offenders over 16 from the jurisdiction of the family court to adult criminal court. Previously the standard of review was "patent and gross abuse of discretion" when the prosecutor's decision to waive the juvenile into adult criminal court was challenged. On September 12, 2012, the New Jersey Supreme Court decided, in State in the Interest of V.A., changed the standard of review to the much lower standard of "abuse of discretion." The justices opinion indicated the lower standard was preferable due to the substantially enhanced punishment faced by juveniles tried in adult criminal court. In this case, the juveniles were charged with conduct amounting to first-degree robbery, second-degree aggravated assault and conspiracy. The justices, in consideration of the serious penalties for the offenses, offered guidelines governing the waiver of juveniles into adult criminal court including the nature of the offense, the need for deterrence, the possible sentence the juvenile will receive at trial and the juvenile's prior record. Juvenile matters are extremely sensitive in nature as they may result in a criminal record which destroys the hope of certain educational and employment opportunities for the remainder of the juvenile's life. If your son or daughter is facing criminal charges, you should consult an experienced criminal law attorney immediately in order to protect your rights. For more information on juvenile criminal matters including municipal court matters in New Jersey visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and in no way intended to replace the advice of an attorney regarding your specific matter.

Sexual Assault Case Was in The Details in NJ

In State v. Nash, a former librarian at the Morton Street Elementary School was found guilty of sexual assault charges and spent 10 years in prison before he was granted a retrial based on newly discovered evidence. The NJ Supreme Court ruled that if would be a fundamental injustice not to review the case in light of newly discovered evidence tending to exonerate Nash. Nash contested the charges of sexual assault as impossible based on the fact that the accusing student, J.B., a 12 year old special needs student, had a personal aide with him at all times. However, school principal Carl Gregory, now deceased, testified that J.B. did not have a personal aide. Gregory failed to testify to the fact that Chrystal St. Louis was J.B.'s student aide and with J.B. at all times. Gregory claimed not to have made that disclosure due to the fact that he was not questioned about it while providing testimony to the court. N.J. Court Rule 3:22-4(a) typically bars appellate courts from considering matters not raised at trial however, testimony regarding the presence of a student aide with J.B. at all times during the day is compelling and likely to change the outcome of a trial. N.J. Supreme Court Justice Barry Albin reasoned that strict adherence to N.J.C.R. 3:22-4(a) would amount to a "miscarriage of justice." Seemingly minor details can have substantial consequences in the outcome of a criminal matter. If you are facing criminal charges, you should consult an experienced criminal law attorney immediately in order to protect your rights. For more information on sex crimes or other criminal law matters in New Jersey visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and in no way intended to replace the advice of an attorney regarding your specific matter.

Spousal Misconduct May Bar Alimony in NJ

In New Jersey, spousal misconduct is typically no bar to receipt of alimony to that spouse even in the event of adultery or significant depletion of the parties' funds. In Mani v Mani, 183 N.J 70 (2005) the NJ Supreme Court set forth two exceptions to this rule pertaining to financial matters between the parties. One exception is where the conduct of a spouse "affects the parties' economic life." The second exception comes into play when the actions of a spouse "so violate societal norms that continuing the economic bonds between the parties would confound notions of simple justice." If you are seeking a divorce and know or strongly believe your spouse's behavior has drastically altered your lifestyle financially you should speak with an experienced family law attorney immediately to protect your rights. For more information on alimony, support, equitable distribution, child support, palimony, divorce, dissolution of civil union or domestic partnership or other family law matters in New Jersey visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and in no way intended to replace the advice of an attorney regarding your specific matter.