Question by Khankrumthebulgar: Cohabitation is not needed anymore for Palimony according to NJ Judge. What are your thoughts on this?
Palimony ruling sets precedent in Jersey
Justices: Cohabitation is not the only factor
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
BY TOM HESTER
Star-Ledger Staff

In a decision described as the first of its type in the nation, the state Supreme Court ruled yesterday that a couple does not have to live together in order for one partner to sue the other for palimony after a breakup.

The high court ruled that judges should consider the “entirety” of a couple’s relationship, and that cohabitation is only one factor in deciding whether they had a “marital-type relationship.”

The ruling overturned an appeals court decision last year that said there is no basis for a palimony suit unless a couple lived together.

“It is the promise of support, expressed or implied, coupled with a marital-type relationship, that are the indispensable elements to support a valid claim of palimony,” Justice John Wallace wrote for the court.

The high court was ruling in the case of a former North Bergen woman who was attempting to sue a prominent, wealthy and married Manhattan ophthalmologist for palimony after he ended a 20-year relationship.

“This is the first ruling of its type in the country,” said William Goldberg, the Hackensack-based attorney for the defendant in the case, retired ophthalmologist Francis L’Esperance, 75. “I don’t remember any case in the United States ever permitting recovery where cohabitation did not exist. This is the first case that says there does not necessarily have to be a ‘bright-line’ requirement that cohabitation must exist, but it certainly is the most significant factor.”

Alan Zegas, a Chatham-based family law attorney, said the decision is precedent-setting.

“The court appears to be evaluating the case in terms of requiring lower courts to examine whether promises were made that would cause one of the partners to believe a relationship existed, that it was similar to a marriage,” he said. “I think the door is now wide open on these types of claims.”

The justices left it up to Superior Court judges to determine when there is grounds for a palimony suit. Palimony is a court-ordered allowance paid by one member of an unmarried couple following a breakup. Alimony payments involve married couples.

“The Family Court is well equipped to consider highly personal facts and to determine whether a plaintiff’s claim for support based on a marital-type relationship has merit,” Wallace wrote.

The New Jersey courts have ruled since 1979 that cohabitation was necessary to bring a palimony suit. Prior to that year, the courts would not enforce support claims involving unmarried couples or married couples not living with their spouses.

The ruling did not help the woman who made the palimony claim, Helen Devaney, 47, now of Brooklyn. The justices turned away Devaney’s contention that an unsuccessful effort to conceive a child with L’Esperance in 2003 “demonstrates that their relationship was sufficiently akin to a marriage.”

They found she did not present enough evidence to uphold her palimony claim. L’Esperance, a pioneer in laser eye surgery, provided Devaney with money and a condominium in North Bergen.

Devaney was 23 and L’Esperance 51 when she went to work for him in 1983. After a few months, their relationship became intimate. She knew he was married, but he told her he planned to get a divorce. The couple saw each other no more than two or three evenings each week and sometimes one day on the weekend. During the seven years Devaney lived in the condo, L’Esperance spent no more than seven nights there, according to the decision.

The justices noted the trial judge found Devaney relied on L’Esperance’s promises to take care of her and she eventually became financially dependent on L’Esperance.

“As the trial judge so aptly phrased it,” Wallace wrote, “‘the parties’ relationship was best characterized as a dating relationship.’”

Tom Hester may be reached at thester@starledger.com or (609) 292-0557.

Best answer:

Answer by johno
That is ridiculous! I’m glad she didn’t get any money, she is probably just pis*ed about wasted many years of her life. It’s not the guys fault why should he have to pay, can’t she work?

What do you think? Answer below!