New Jersey Family Law

HOBOKEN HUDSON COUNTY NEW JERSEY PALIMONY ATTORNEY

50 Cent, aka Curtis James Jackson, sought dismissal of his ex-girlfriend's claims. She claimed half of his multimillion-dollar estate and future income, arguing he orally promised to "take care of her for the rest of her life." He argued the alleged oral agreement violated the Statute of Frauds. The court agreed and found the purported agreement was made when the parties lived together as lovers. While his statements demonstrated loving devotion, they also undermined her breach of contract claim. The court ruled the services for which she sought compensation arose out of the nature of the relationship, and ordinarily would be exchanged without expectation of payment. Also, the oral agreement was unenforceable as lacking in specifics, and violated the Statute of Frauds. Thus, the complaint was dismissed.  Tomkins v. Jackson, Supreme Court, New York County, February 10, 2009

MORRISTOWN MORRIS COUNTY NEW JERSEY PALIMONY MEDIATOR

In this palimony action, he appealed from an order approving the contract for sale of real property; requiring his eviction from the property; and awarding counsel fees. Based on her unrebutted testimony, and his testimony in a bankruptcy court hearing, the appellate panel affirms the trial court's determination that she is a 50% owner of the property, which is subject to equitable distribution, as an asset of the parties' partnership.    Sciorra v. Slater, New Jersey App. Div., December 18, 2008

CHATHAM MORRIS COUNTY NEW JERSEY PALIMONY MEDIATION ATTORNEY

We now know you can't get palimony if you cohabit with a married man and his wife but then leave him because he won't leave her. Although this arrangement was deemed "a marriage-type relationship", the trial court's grant of palimony damages is reversed because there was no express or implied promise of lifetime support. "Palimony is the enforcement of a broken promise made for future support. It is not recompense for years spent in a failed relationship" nor "an economic substitute for opportunities that may have been lost or expectations that were unfulfilled." The ruling cost Fiona Bayne the $384,000 awarded her at the trial level, leaving her only with an equity share in a condominium in which she had invested. Bayne v. Johnson v. Johnson, New Jersey App. Div., October 29, 2008;    N.J. Super.    (App. Div. 2008).

MADISON MORRIS COUNTY NEW JERSEY PALIMONY

Do you have a New Jersey palimony case or claim? If it's not in writing and signed by the other party, you might want to file suit now, based on your oral/verbal agreement. Otherwise, you stand to be barred if the New Jersey legislature has its way. Under legislation just introduced, New Jersey courts would be prohibited from validating any alleged palimony agreement unless in a signed writing. Senate Bill #2091, October 14, 2008

HOBOKEN HUDSON COUNTY NEW JERSEY PALIMONY MEDIATION ATTORNEY

This was a palimony case. Although the plaintiff's claims for unjust enrichment and fraud were properly dismissed, the rest of the case is remanded for reconsideration, in light of Devaney v. L'Esperance, decided after the trial here. The judge did find that the defendant did promise to love and care for plaintiff during their 18 year relationship. Wessel v. Burritt, App. Div., October 7, 2008

KINNELON NEW JERSEY MORRIS COUNTY PALIMONY MEDIATION

The parties cohabited for more than a decade as partners in a committed relationship. After they separated, plaintiff sued for palimony and division of property.  Defendant, initially represented by counsel, proceeded pro se. He failed to appear at an early settlement panel and to meet discovery obligations, so default was entered. He also did not respond to plaintiff's enforcement motions until 10 months after entry of judgment. The judge found no excusable neglect. However, he is entitled to be heard on his contention he had no notice of the enforcement order. Accordingly, the matter is remanded for reconsideration of that order only.      Bigica v. Rusuloj, New Jersey App. Div., March 7, 2008

EDGEWATER NEW JERSEY BERGEN COUNTY DIVORCE LAWYER PALIMONY

In an appeal by the decedent's wife, the Appellate Division reverses the trial court order that imposed a constructive trust on the wife's share of the decedent's intestate estate in favor of the decedent's companion, with whom the decedent had lived since shortly after his estrangement from his wife 40 years before. This was because (1) the evidence was sufficient to establish a question of fact as to whether there was an implied promise by the decedent to ensure that the companion would receive adequate provision during the remainder of her life and (2) the trial court erred by relying on the equitable principle of constructive trust and should have relied on contract principles.    In Re Estate of Quarg, ___ N.J. Super. ___(App. Div. 2008); January 21, 2008

NORTH HALEDON NEW JERSEY PASSAIC COUNTY DIVORCE PALIMONY LAWYER

On January 22, 2008, the New Jersey Supreme Court will hear oral argument in a long-awaited and much-observed important palimony case. As defined by the Court, the major issue presented on appeal is defined as follows : does a long-term, intimate relationship between an unmarried woman and man who did not cohabit, but who attempted to have a child together, support the woman's action for palimony?     Devaney v. L'Esperance, New Jersey Supreme Court, January 15, 2008

HACKENSACK MEDIATOR

She was a 17-year-old college student, living in a dormitory, when she began her relationship with him, then a 55-year-old divorced financier. The 17 relationship ended in 2004, and she now seeks palimony and damages for physical and emotional abuse. Does she have a cognizable claim for palimony when the parties never cohabited? He moved for dismissal, citing New Jersey precedent holding that cohabitation is an absolute prerequisite to a New Jersey claim for palimony. He also asserts that the tort claims are time-barred. The court denied dismissal, because it was not persuaded that the New Jersey Supreme Court would mandate a "bright-line" cohabitation requirement. The court also denies the motion as to the tort claims because it finds that the New Jersey statute of limitations applies in this lawsuit, and therefore some of the incidents alleged are within the limitations period. As to the others, which plaintiff argues must survive based on Battered Woman’s Syndrome, whether there was any abuse at all is hotly disputed, and will require a determination on credibility. Thus, whether alleged acts of abuse occurring outside of the two-year limitations period are preserved, cannot be decided on summary judgment.     Carino v. O’Malley, III, U.S. Dist. Ct., Mar. 28, 2007

NEW JERSEY DIVORCE LAWYER

The New Jersey divorce court erred in finding the wife violated the husband's privacy by placing hidden video cameras in the home office at their New Jersey marital residence and in the bedroom of their New York apartment. This was because there was no finding that he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the home office : the whole family freely used the room. Also, under New York law, applicable to the apartment, there is no common law or statutory right of privacy for his claim. Even if there were, the $125,000 punitive damages award was erroneous. Before punitive damages can be awarded, there must be a finding of compensatory damages, which were not proven here.    Colon v. Colon, New Jersey App. Div., August 16, 2006