NJSBA Family Law Section

I am wondering if I can sustain a palimony claim in light of the amendment to the Statue of Frauds.  I have a case where the breach of the promise to support occurred prior to the Statue's effective date of Jan 18, 2010 but where client did not pursue claim until now.  There are only 2 reported cases I found since revision to statute, Botis v.the Estate of Kudrick which held the amendment applied prospectively and not retroactively where the case was pending at time of amendment.  In Cavalli v Arena, trial court  decision, and  an unreported case Macker v. Ross, both found claim was barred due to breach of promise to support occurring after effective date of statute and therefore an opportunity to cure and comply with statute was available.  In my potential case breach of promise to support occurred prior to amendment to statute, and therefore there would be no opportunity to cure by obtaining written promise.  I am wondering if that distinction will create a viable claim, and if anyone has had success or failure in pursuing claim 
-------------------------------------------
Barbara Feinberg Esq.
Rockaway NJ
(973)586-0707

-------------------------------------------

IMO, your case needs to be litigated. There needs to be case law guidance, and the only way to get there is to get there. This reminds me of the years when the DV Act was new and so many folks who had findings against them went up, because there was no telling how they'd turn out. Good luck!
-------------------------------------------
Curtis Romanowski Esq.
Senior Attorney - Proprietor
Brielle NJ
(732)603-8585

-------------------------------------------






Original Message:
Sent: 08-22-2013 14:27
From: Barbara Feinberg
Subject: Palimony


I am wondering if I can sustain a palimony claim in light of the amendment to the Statue of Frauds.  I have a case where the breach of the promise to support occurred prior to the Statue's effective date of Jan 18, 2010 but where client did not pursue claim until now.  There are only 2 reported cases I found since revision to statute, Botis v.the Estate of Kudrick which held the amendment applied prospectively and not retroactively where the case was pending at time of amendment.  In Cavalli v Arena, trial court  decision, and  an unreported case Macker v. Ross, both found claim was barred due to breach of promise to support occurring after effective date of statute and therefore an opportunity to cure and comply with statute was available.  In my potential case breach of promise to support occurred prior to amendment to statute, and therefore there would be no opportunity to cure by obtaining written promise.  I am wondering if that distinction will create a viable claim, and if anyone has had success or failure in pursuing claim 
-------------------------------------------
Barbara Feinberg Esq.
Rockaway NJ
(973)586-0707

-------------------------------------------

The Maeker v. Ross case Barb cites is up before the Supremes as I type, thanx to Angelo Sarno, who took over for Bev Maeker when I had to get out. It will be an interesting decision, regardless of which way they go.

-------------------------------------------
Pamela Copeland Esq.
Watchung NJ
(908)561-6800

-------------------------------------------






Original Message:
Sent: 08-25-2013 11:34
From: Curtis Romanowski
Subject: Palimony


IMO, your case needs to be litigated. There needs to be case law guidance, and the only way to get there is to get there. This reminds me of the years when the DV Act was new and so many folks who had findings against them went up, because there was no telling how they'd turn out. Good luck!
-------------------------------------------
Curtis Romanowski Esq.
Senior Attorney - Proprietor
Brielle NJ
(732)603-8585

-------------------------------------------






Original Message:
Sent: 08-22-2013 14:27
From: Barbara Feinberg
Subject: Palimony


I am wondering if I can sustain a palimony claim in light of the amendment to the Statue of Frauds.  I have a case where the breach of the promise to support occurred prior to the Statue's effective date of Jan 18, 2010 but where client did not pursue claim until now.  There are only 2 reported cases I found since revision to statute, Botis v.the Estate of Kudrick which held the amendment applied prospectively and not retroactively where the case was pending at time of amendment.  In Cavalli v Arena, trial court  decision, and  an unreported case Macker v. Ross, both found claim was barred due to breach of promise to support occurring after effective date of statute and therefore an opportunity to cure and comply with statute was available.  In my potential case breach of promise to support occurred prior to amendment to statute, and therefore there would be no opportunity to cure by obtaining written promise.  I am wondering if that distinction will create a viable claim, and if anyone has had success or failure in pursuing claim 
-------------------------------------------
Barbara Feinberg Esq.
Rockaway NJ
(973)586-0707

-------------------------------------------