New Jersey Family Law

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

NEW JERSEY PALIMONY

The parties had an extramarital romantic relationship that spanned over 70 years. They never cohabited during the entire period of their relationship. The trial court's dismissal of the case is affirmed. In order to establish a prima facie case for palimony, a plaintiff must present competent evidence showing: (1) the parties cohabitated; (2) in a marriage-type relationship; (3) during the cohabitation, defendant promised plaintiff that he/she would support him/her for life; and (4) this promise was made in exchange for valid consideration.   Levine v. Konvitz, et al., New Jersey App. Div., ___N.J. Super.___(App. Div. 2006); February 3, 2006

If It Doen't Fit...

Johnnie Cochran, Esq. passed away yesterday. Flamboyant in public, he kept his private life shrouded in secrecy. When some of those secrets became public following a 1978 divorce, they were startling. During that divorce, it came to light that for 10 years Mr. Cochran had secretly maintained a 'second family' which included a son. After that relationship soured, his mistress, Patricia Sikora, sued him for palimony and the case was settled privately in 2004. Los Angeles Times, March 30, 2005

Palimony

Palimony is alive and well in New Jersey family law. This case demonstrates the risk of a long-term relationship without benefit of a written agreement defining the parties' respective rights. Here, the court dealt with a 30-plus-year relationship between the 78-year-old defendant and the 71-year-old plaintiff. The court found that defendant made a promise, both express and implied, to take care of plaintiff for the rest of her life. The award included (a) free-and-clear transfer of his  Mystic Island property to her, (b)a one-time lump sum judgment of $384,256.21, based on the present value of reasonable future support he promised to provide her, computed on her life expectancy, reduced by a market discount rate of interest and (c) counsel fees to her as well. Browner v. DeAngelis, New Jersey Ch. Div., February 22, 2005.

Breaking Up Is Hard To Do

When unmarried partners split up in New Jersey, various theories of legal liability can be asserted. These include palimony, breach of contract [implied or express], the partition of jointly-held assets and/or promissory estoppel. This case involved a fight over which branch of the Superior Court had jurisdiction : Law Division [where civil/commercial cases are usually brought and where you have the right to a jury trial] or Chancery Division [where the Family Part presides over divorces and other similar cases and there is no jury]. Here, the case will be sent back to the Law Division because the plaintiff did not seek support or other "marital-like" relief. Redeker v. Lutz, New Jersey App. Div., January 19, 2005