Chronicling the high cost of our legal system

Overlawyered

June 18th, 2008 at 10:33 am

New Jersey high court: palimony without cohabitation OK

Courts up to now have maintained a bright-line rule of not entertaining palimony claims unless a couple has cohabited, such a rule significantly improving people’s degree of certainty about which former romantic partners might suddenly emerge with a financial claim. But of course when you have bright-line rules of this sort, not as many people get to sue, so the New Jersey high court has now made itself the first state high court to overthrow the rule, inviting claims where the totality of the facts and circumstances “would cause one of the partners to believe a relationship existed, that it was similar to a marriage,” to quote Chatham, N.J. lawyer Alan Zegas (Tom Hester, “Palimony ruling sets precedent in Jersey”, Star-Ledger; NJLJ; AP/Cherry Hill Courier-Post*). Earlier here.

* Okay, there you go, AP, I didn’t quote even the five words from your story. But you also notice I gave the Star-Ledger first billing.

Share/Save/Bookmark

Related posts


In ; ; ;
5
  • 1

    I’ve never understood what “Totality of the facts and circumstances” that lacked a rather specific “I DO” would make one think they were in a relationship similar to marriage.

    I guess I just need a brighter line than most to make upp for not being bright myself.

    OBQuiet on June 18th, 2008
  • 2

    If I didn’t have eight other planned law review articles in my queue not getting written, and if it weren’t such a trivial issue, I’d write a piece on how the palimony cause-of-action is the back-door resuscitation of the discredited heartbalm statutes of old.

    Ted Frank on June 18th, 2008
  • 3

    But of course not trivial to those it affects.

    Walter Olson on June 18th, 2008
  • 4

    Even worse than heart balm statutes (alienation of affection and criminal conversation) which affect recognized marriages.

    Here, every break-up involves some implied contract and a question of fact precluding summary judgment. This should be called the “full employment for family lawyers doctrine.”

    Bob Neal on June 18th, 2008
  • 5

    This post reminded me of the lyrics of an old Charlie Parker/Tiny Grimes tune:

    Romance without finance is a nuisance
    Baby, you know I need me some gold
    Romance without finance just don’t make sense
    Mama, mama, please give up that gold
    You so great and you so fine
    You ain’t got no money you can’t be mine
    It ain’t no joke to be stone broke
    Baby, you know I’d lie when I say
    Romance without finance is a nuisance
    Please please baby give me some gold

    Shtetl G on June 18th, 2008

 

RSS feed for comments on this post | TrackBack URI