Those advocating for wholesale alimony reform would be well served by examining the disastrous, but entirely foreseeable, consequences of the recently revised law concerning palimony in New Jersey. This experience should serve as a warning to what can happen when we allow the law to be changed due to political and personal agendas. The palimony law, through the statute of frauds, was amended so as to render any oral agreement or promise regarding support, sharing of assets, use of a home, etc., unenforceable. All palimony agreements must be in writing to be enforceable. The legislature made this draconian requirement retroactive and applicable to all palimony agreements; even those entered into an relied upon prior to the revisions. I have met with several potential clients who have been devastated by this new law. There is presently a case before the NJ Supreme Court seeking to have the justices rule that the new law will not apply to old agreements. I for one hope the Justices of the Supreme Court recognize the inherent inequities in the current law and correct the situation and enable people to resume relying on their previously entered into promises. Until that case is decided, at least on trial level judge is doing what he can to grant relief to those who need it.
Exception Found to Law Requiring Palimony Pacts To Be in Writing
In what appears to be a case of first impression, a judge has found an exception to the 2010 New Jersey law that outlawed palimony without written agreements. Superior Court Judge Ned Rosenberg found that Sharon Joiner-Orman — by her 39 years of companionship to actor Roscoe Orman, as homemaker and mother of their four children — “fully performed her end of the bargain,” and that to permit Orman to avoid his promise to take care of her financially for the rest of her life would work a fraud.
