By Partner T. Sandberg Durst
Sandy Durst, Esq., is a partner with the Princeton firm of Lynch, Osborne, Gilmore & Durst, and LLC where he heads the Family Law Department. Individuals facing a divorce benefit from the combination of legal skill, common sense and compassion that Sandy brings to each and every matter. Each case is given the personalized attention it deserves.
As discussed in the recent posting by the New Jersey Law Journal, the true impact of the NJ Palimony statute remains to be decided. Retroactive application would be grossly inequitable and it is hoped that the Court proivdes guidance on this point. NEW PALIMONY STATUTE OF FRAUDS’ RETROACTIVITY AT ISSUE ON APPEAL Against a backdrop of conflicting trial court rulings, a New Jersey appeals court is poised to decide whether the state’s year-old statutory ban on oral palimony agreements is retroactive. On Dec. 13, the Appellate Division will hear arguments in Botis v. Estate of Kudrick, a dispute over a revision to the statute of frauds, N.J.S.A. 25:1-5(h), that requires an agreement by one person to provide support to another during or after a “non-marital personal relationship” be put in writing after both parties are advised by counsel. The law, signed by Gov. Jon Corzine last Jan. 18, 2010, stated that it “shall take effect immediately,” but it is unclear whether that meant it applies only to agreements struck after that date or also to longstanding agreements that are sought to be enforced after that date. The difference is especially critical where the alleged promisor is dead.
