Palimony – financial support when the parties are not married – is an available claim under NJ law. However, the right was greatly restricted by an amendment to the statute of frauds which required a written document or agreement in order to enforce or impose a palimony claim. The amended statute went as far as to make this requirement “retroactive” to those relationships that pre-existed the new law. By doing so, the legislature put the welfare of many NJ residents at risk.
A case before the Supreme Court is seeking to bring fairness and reasonableness to palimony claims for those relationships that pre-date the new law. Stay tuned for a more in-depth discussion once the decision has been rendered.
A-1-13 Beverly Maeker v. William Ross (072185)
(Somerset County and Statewide)
Argued 3/4/14
Does the 2010 amendment to the Statute of Frauds, N.J.S.A. 25:1-5(h), which requires a writing memorializing palimony agreements and independent advice of counsel prior to executing such an agreement, apply to bar enforcement of oral agreements that existed before adoption of the amendment?
