N.J. Supreme Court Says Cohabitation Not Required for Palimony
The New Jersey Supreme Court has ruled that cohabitation is not an essential requirement for a palimony suit, although it is a factor that should be considered.
The New Jersey Law Journal says the ruling is a break from precedent set by “nearly every other state court.”
Although cohabitation is not a requirement, a “marital-type relationship” still must be proven along with an express or implied promise to support the palimony claimant, the court said.
In the case before it, the court ruled receptionist Helen Devaney had not met the burden of proof to receive palimony from the ophthalmologist who employed her, Francis L’Esperance. Devaney lived in an apartment L’Esperance had purchased for her until their 20-year relationship ended in 2003.
Prior coverage
ABAJournal.com: “N.J. Supreme Court Considers Palimony for Longtime Mistress”
Updated at 12:02 p.m. to include prior coverage.
