N.J. Supreme Court Says Cohabitation Not Required for Palimony

Family Law

N.J. Supreme Court Says Cohabitation Not Required for Palimony

Posted Jun 18, 2008, 06:59 am CDT
By Debra Cassens Weiss

The New Jersey Supreme Court has ruled that cohabitation is not an essential requirement for a palimony suit, although it is a factor that should be considered.

The New Jersey Law Journal says the ruling is a break from precedent set by “nearly every other state court.”

Although cohabitation is not a requirement, a “marital-type relationship” still must be proven along with an express or implied promise to support the palimony claimant, the court said.

In the case before it, the court ruled receptionist Helen Devaney had not met the burden of proof to receive palimony from the ophthalmologist who employed her, Francis L'Esperance. Devaney lived in an apartment L'Esperance had purchased for her until their 20-year relationship ended in 2003.

Prior coverage

ABAJournal.com: "N.J. Supreme Court Considers Palimony for Longtime Mistress"

Updated at 12:02 p.m. to include prior coverage.

Comments

Report Abuse

Be the first to comment.

Commenting has expired on this post.

ABA Journal - Law News Now

Family Law