NJ Legislature misses the point when it comes to palimony

Image via Wikipedia

As previously commented by this blog, the New Jersey Senate, yesterday approved a bill S-2091 that will require palimony agreements to be in writing to be enforceable.   While such a rational works for pre-nuptial agreements, where parties are required to disclose their assets and have the opportunity to engage lawyers, the legislature misses the point when it comes to palimony, which by its nature has always been about the enforceablility of an oral promise of support.

As reported in today's New Jersey Law Journal daily briefing,"[t]he leading opponents, Sen. Nia Gill, D-Essex, and Sen. Loretta Weinberg, D-Bergen, said the measure would be unfair to older women who stay in non-marital relationships for long periods of time with the understanding that they will be taken care of financially once the relationships end."

Although the case law in New Jersey has evolved to make palimony more attainable, as evidenced by the NJ Supreme Court decision in Devaney v. L'Esperance, which held that cohabitation was no longer a prerequisite for a palimony claim, there is no evidence that the number of palimony cases has increased to the point where the legislature needs to pre-empt the equitable powers of the New Jersey family courts to decide each case on its merits.