Very often, we blog on cases for which we have had no involvement. Today we get to toot our own horn a little and blog on one of our cases that made new law. The case is Maeker v. Ross, a reported (precedential) opinion decided on February 4, 2013 by the Appellate Division. This case may… Continue Reading
Category Archives: Palimony
Subscribe to Palimony RSS FeedRECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN THE EVER-CHANGING NJ LAW ON PALIMONY
Posted in PalimonyFor those of you have have followed the continuum in New Jersey’s palimony law, October has proven to be a busy month, with not one but two opinions. Nearly one year ago, the NJ legislature passed law that, in sum, prohibited the enforcement of palimony agreements that have not been put in writing. When the new… Continue Reading
Palimony Claims Still Alive Says Appellate DIvision – Statute Only Applies Prospectively
Posted in PalimonyOn his last day in office in January 2010, Governor Corzine signed a bill amending the Statute of Frauds to require that all palimony contracts had to be in writing. The bill was a knee jerk reaction by the legislature who were unhappy with a number of more recent court decisions liberally allowing for palimony… Continue Reading
Will the Palimony Statute Be Applied Retroactively – The Appellate Division May Soon Tell Us
Posted in PalimonyIn January 2010, on his way out of office, Governor Corzine signed a bill requiring palimony agreements to be in writing. We previously blogged on the enactment of that law. The question that arose is whether the bill was prospective in nature or whether it applied retroactively. At a seminar I attended in May, I heard a… Continue Reading
Palimony Agreements Must be in Writing and Signed
Posted in PalimonyIn October of 2008, Jennifer W. Milner blogged on palimony and pending legislation (S-2091), which, if enacted, would overturn the palimony decisions she discussed by requiring that any such contract to support one for life must be in writing and signed by the person making the promise. More specifically, that a promise by one party to… Continue Reading
Palimony: The Court and Legislature Weigh In
Posted in Cohabitants' Rights, PalimonyThe law surrounding palimony has been fluid in the last several months as the New Jersey Courts have refined litigants rights after the break up of relationships in which the parties were not married. Most of the decisions are consistent with the New Jersey Supreme Court’s decision in Kozlowski v. Kozlowski, 80 N.J. 378 (1979),… Continue Reading
CAN AN ATTORNEY’S ETHICAL VIOLATION BE A CLIENT’S PROBLEM AS WELL?
Posted in Palimony, Practice IssuesMost people have heard or had experience with an attorney who’s behaviors were, one could say, questionable. What most have not considered is what implications an attorney’s unethical or questionable behaviors could have on them. The New Jersey Supreme Court has provided some guidance on this very topic in the recent decision of Brundage v…. Continue Reading
THE NEW JERSEY SUPREME COURT HOLDS THAT COHABITATION IS NOT AN ESSENTIAL PART OF A PALIMONY CLAIM
Posted in PalimonyTHE NEW JERSEY SUPREME COURT HOLDS THAT COHABITATION IS NOT AN ESSENTIAL PART OF A PALIMONY CLAIM