Palimony – financial support when the parties are not married – is an available claim under NJ law.\u00a0 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.\u00a0 The amended statute went as far as to make this requirement “retroactive” to those relationships that pre-existed the new law.\u00a0 By doing so, the legislature put the welfare of many NJ residents at risk.<\/p>\n
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.\u00a0 Stay tuned for a more in-depth discussion once the decision has been rendered.<\/p>\n
A-1-13 Beverly Maeker v. William Ross (072185)<\/strong> 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?<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Palimony – financial support when the parties are not married – is an available claim under NJ law.\u00a0 However, the right was greatly restricted by an amendment to the statute of frauds which required a written document or agreement in … Continue reading
\n(Somerset County and Statewide)
\nArgued 3\/4\/14<\/em><\/p>\n