NJ Family Issues

RSS | Comments RSS

Archive for the ‘Palimony Issues’ Category

Part performance, promissory estoppel and palimony agreements

Comments Off
October 2, 2013 at 1:00 pm

(more…)

A defendant can be unjustly enriched by contributions from the plaintiff that are independent of homemaking services, even in the absence of a viable claim for palimony

Comments Off
March 6, 2013 at 7:27 am

(more…)

The mere fact that plaintiff voluntarily left the home the parties shared does not disqualify her from palimony

Comments Off
October 2, 2012 at 12:57 pm

(more…)

Where a defendant defaults, plaintiff is required only to establish a prima facie case for palimony, meaning that in considering plaintiff’s proofs, the trial judge is not to weigh the evidence or make findings of fact but to only determine the bare sufficiency of plaintiff’s proffered evidence

Comments Off
October 2, 2012 at 12:56 pm

(more…)

While a palimony claimant need not show complete dependency on the other party or destitution, 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

Comments Off
October 2, 2012 at 12:54 pm

(more…)

A written promise by one party to a non-marital personal relationship to provide support or other consideration for the other party, either during the course of such relationship or after its termination, is not binding unless it was made with the independent advice of counsel for both parties

Comments Off
October 2, 2012 at 12:46 pm

(more…)

Palimony is a claim for support between unmarried persons

Comments Off
April 26, 2011 at 9:53 am

(more…)

The statute of frauds was amended to include palimony agreements among the types of agreements that must be in writing and signed by the parties in order to be enforceable

Comments Off
April 26, 2011 at 9:51 am

(more…)

A willingness to enter into or remain in a marital-type relationship is relevant to a contractual consideration analysis

Comments Off
April 13, 2011 at 11:24 am

(more…)

Equitable distribution is inapplicable in a matter involving unmarried parties, despite the extent of their cohabitation; however, joint venturers are entitled to seek a partition of their property when their joint enterprise comes to an end, irrespective of how title is formally held

Comments Off
August 27, 2010 at 1:41 pm

(more…)