Family Law
Too-Cozy Home Situation Helps Defeat N.J. Palimony Claim
Posted Oct 28, 2008, 01:20 pm CST
By Martha Neil
Cohabitation isn't an absolute requirement for palimony. But a promise of lifetime support is.
So a living arrangement that puts the romantic couple in the same home as the man's elderly—and wealthy—wife isn't a positive fact for the party seeking palimony, according to a New Jersey appeals court written opinion issued yesterday. (The copy of the decision in Bayne v. Johnson v. Johnson is provided by Rutgers University.)
The Appellate Division overruled a trial court decision awarding Fiona Bayne $384,000, even though the former British Airways flight attendant contended that Earl Johnson had initially concealed the fact that he was married and repeatedly promised that they would eventually wed during the course of a 20-year relationship, reports the New Jersey Law Journal.
"Palimony is the enforcement of a broken promise made for future support," writes Appellate Division Judge Donald Collester in the state Superior Court opinion. "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."
Related coverage:
ABAJournal.com: "N.J. Supreme Court Says Cohabitation Not Required for Palimony"
Commenting has expired on this post.
Comments
Posted by Paul - 2 months, 1 week, 3 days, 7 hours, 55 minutes ago
Ellen? Ellen? Where is your outrage? Why have you not blasted one of the subjects of this article?
I miss the twisted logic and grammar that always makes me chuckle. Don’t go away! Come back and excoriate someone. Tell us this is not funny and someone should be punished. Please come back, Ellen!