BAYNE v. JOHNSON, 403 N.J. Super. 125 (App. Div., 2008) (A-974-06T1, Decided October 27, 2008):

Picture by mando2003us

A valid cause of action for palimony requires an agreement to pay future support made during a marital-type relationship between unmarried persons. Devaney v. L’Esperance, 195 N.J. 247, 257 (2008); In re Estate of Roccamonte, 174 N.J. 381, 391-92 (2002); Kozlowski v. Kozlowski, 80 N.J. 378, 384-86 (1979); Marvin v. Marvin, 557 P.2d 106, 122 (Cal. 1976). There is no bright-line definition of a marital-type relationship. It is not defined by a lengthy affair or a live-in relationship. On the other hand, the absence of cohabitation does not disqualify a person from palimony if the entirety of the relationship leads to the finding that the parties were in a marital-type relationship. Devaney, supra, 195 N.J. at 258-59. Our Supreme Court has described the relationship in general terms as one

in which people committed to each other, foregoing other liaisons and opportunities, doing for each other whatever each is capable of doing, providing companionship, and fulfilling each other’s needs, financial, emotional, physical, and social, as best as they are able. And each couple defines its way of life and each partner’s expected contribution to it in its own way. . . .

[Roccamonte, supra, 174 N.J. at 392-93.]

It is long settled that a promise to support in a palimony action may be expressed or implied. Kozlowski, supra, 80 N.J. at 384.

[T]he existence of the contract and its terms are ordinarily determinable not merely by what is said but primarily by the parties’ “acts and conduct in the light of . . . [their] subject matter and the surrounding circumstances.” We thus concluded that a general promise of support for life, broadly expressed, made by one party to the other with some form of consideration given by the other will suffice to form a contract.

[Roccamonte, supra, 174 N.J. at 389-90, quoting from Kozlowski, supra, 80 N.J. at 384.]

Under the Heartbalm Act, N.J.S.A. 2A:23-1, a palimony claim may not be based on a promise of marriage. Kozlowski, supra, 80 N.J. at 387.

There has to be detrimental reliance upon any alleged promise of support. See In re Estate of Sasson, 387 N.J. Super. 459, 468 (App. Div. 2006).

While a palimony claimant need not show complete dependency on the other party or destitution, see Connell v. Diehl, 397 N.J. Super. 477, 494 (App. Div. 2008), there must be a showing of economic inequality and an inability by the party seeking palimony to live independently at a reasonable level of support. As stated by the Supreme Court,

The issue is, more pertinently, one of economic inequality, and the relevant question is whether the promisee is self-sufficient enough to provide for herself with a reasonable degree of economic comfort appropriate in the circumstances.

[Roccamonte, supra, 174 N.J. at 393.]

Palimony is the enforcement of a broken promise made for future support. Kozlowski, supra, 80 N.J. at 388. It is not recompense for years spent in a failed relationship.

NOTE: Legal and mediation services are offered to Polish-speaking and other clients in Fanwood 07023; Garwood 07027; Kenilworth 07033; Mountainside 07092; Roselle Park 07204; Roselle 07203; Elizabeth 07201; Linden 07036; Rahway 07065; Westfield 07090; Clark 07066; Cranford 07016; Scotch Plains 07076; Springfield 07081; Union 07083; Winfield; Carteret 07008; Edison 08817; Old Bridge 08857; Perth Amboy 08861; Sayreville 08871; South Amboy 08878; South River 08877; Avenel 07001; Colonia 07067; Iselin 08830; Woodbridge 07095; Somerset 08873; and Somerville 08876, New Jersey.