Too-Cozy Home Situation Helps Defeat N.J. Palimony Claim
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”
