Palimony Not Contingent on Cohabitation in New Jersey
On June 17, 2008, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that a successful palimony claim is not dependant on whether or not the parties lived together. The panel found that co-habitation is only one of many factors that judges should consider when considering palimony claims, according to a report by the New Jersey Law Journal.
In Devaney v. L'Esperance, the high court diverted from precedent set by nearly every other court in the state in the 6-1 vote and said that to prove a palimony claim, a plaintiff must only prove that there was a "marital-type relationship" between the parties, rather than show evidence that they lived together for a period of time.
Despite the finding that co-habitation is not required for a successful palimony claim, the court found that the plaintiff in the case, Helen Devaney, failed to prove that she and the defendant, Dr. Francis L'Esperance, had a marital-type relationship.
Dr. L'Esperance is an ophthalmologist in New York City and Devaney had worked for him as a receptionist. The pair began dating in 1983 and Dr. L'Esperance paid for Devaney's college education and purchased an apartment for her in North Bergen, New Jersey. Dr. L'Esperance and Devaney also tried to conceive a child together, but were unsuccessful. Devaney claimed that Dr. L'Esperance promised that he would divorce his wife and marry her, but that never materialized. In 2003 the couple broke up and Dr. L'Esperance evicted Devaney from the apartment.
Justice John Wallace Jr. said that Superior Court Judge Maureen Mantineo was correct in her finding that Devaney and Dr. L'Esperance never presented themselves as a married couple. Wallace also said that a requirement for a successful palimony claim was not met because Devaney was unable to prove that Dr. L'Esperance promised to support her.
Palimony is a combination of the words "pal" and "alimony" made up by celebrity divorce attorney Marvin Mitchelson in 1977. When couples who are not married split up, divorce is not an option and divorce courts do not have jurisdiction. Instead, issues involved in the dissolution of a non-marital relationship are treated as civil matters and handled by trial courts. Palimony claims must be based on a contract between the unmarried parties, whether it is a formal, written contract or a promise made during the relationship. Of course, promises made in the heat of passion can be extremely difficult to prove in court and many palimony cases without written contracts have been dismissed.
Palimony claims are similar to divorce and alimony cases in that they seek a financial settlement. Also similar to divorce laws, palimony laws vary from state to state. Property is generally not divided in palimony cases and the legal owner of the property retains the property after the breakup, even if it was considered community property during the relationship. Palimony payments also differ from alimony payments because they are generally a lump sum financial settlement, rather than a structured series of payments over a period of time.
Historically, successful palimony claims have usually been made only by people who have lived together for a period of time. The New Jersey Supreme Court ruling is significant because it removes the assumed requirement that the couple had cohabitated. The court decided that a more flexible and realistic approach to palimony claims was warranted and that a promise of support, express or implied, during a marital-type relationship are the requirements of a successful palimony lawsuit.
