In February, 2009, there was a discussion on this list (or its predecessor) that a bill to eliminate palimony in New Jersey had passed the Senate Judiciary Committee and was headed for a vote. The bill, a reaction to a series of palimony decisions that had in my opinion (as well, apparently, as the legislature's) gone too far by (among other things) removing the requirement for cohabitation to establish palimony liability.
The bill, I argued back then, went too far: It's one thing to say that there must be a real showing of detrimental reliance and an implied promise to support palimony liability. It's another to say that, for example, someone who lives in a marriage-like relationship for 25 years and forgoes all economic opportunities in life can be dumped and left on welfare.
Even those who supported the idea of some legislative action seemed to agree that there are situations where palimony liability is appropriate and just.
As we all know, the bill passed and a lot of injustice resulted. I don't know where we as a group were, where FLEC was, where NJ NOW was, where Poverty Law projects were....
Last year, the Supreme Court ruled that, in sum, the statute wasn't retroactive.
At least there was a safety valve for those who had sacrificed their earning ability before the date of the statute.
ON MONDAY, MAY 11, 2015, THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE APPROVED A BILL THAT WOULD MAKE THE STATUTE RETROACTIVE.
Please - make some noise. If they want to fix palimony, then come up with fair provisions to codify, as much as possible, when the liability arises and what it entails. But the original bill went too far and this one goes further. Please contact your legislators (go to http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/members/legsearch.asp). Sign up to track the bill and show up in Trenton to testify on it () New Jersey S2553 | 2014-2015 | Regular Session
If we want to address the problems with palimony, fine - but let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater.
------------------------------
David Perry Davis, Esq.
112 West Franklin Avenue
Pennington, NJ 08534
www.FamilyLawNJ.pro
Voice: 609-737-2222
Fax: 609-737-3222
------------------------------
http://www.njlawjournal.com/home/id=1202726074483/Lawmakers-Push-to-Make-Palimony-Law-Retroactive?mcode=1202617074826&curindex=5
The New Jersey Senate Judiciary Committee on May 7 recommended passage of a bill that would retroactively apply a 2010 law requiring all palimony agreements to be put into writing if they are to be enforceable.
The committee, in a 9-4 vote, recommended passage of S2553, which would overturn the state Supreme Court's 2014 ruling in Maeker v. Ross. In that case, the court unanimously ruled that there was nothing in the language of the 2010 law that suggested it was meant to apply retroactively.
Judiciary Committee Chairman Nicholas Scutari, D-Union, said it was, indeed, the intent of lawmakers to have the 2010 legislation apply retroactively.
S2553 would require that all oral palimony agreements entered into before Jan. 18, 2010, the effective date of the original bill, be put into writing within one year from the enactment of the latest bill if they are to be considered valid.
If there is an agreement, put it into writing, Scutari said. If you do so, it will be valid. If it's not, it won't be recognized.
The bill passed through the committee despite the opposition of the New Jersey State Bar Association.
Lisa Chapland, the bar's legislative liaison, said at the May 7 Judiciary Committee hearing that retroactive enactment would be unfair to those who have depended on those oral agreements for years or decades.
It will create unequal bargaining power, she said. To tell those people they have a year to get their palimony agreement in writing will result in unequal bargaining power for the primary income earner or the party with the most assets.
Sen. Gerald Cardinale, R-Bergen, the co-sponsor of the bill, said he thought it was odd that the bar would object to having any agreement put into writing.
Cardinale questioned why lawyers would advocate to "maintain uncertainty" of the validity of oral agreements.
Scutari discounted Chapland's arguments.
Plaintiffs claiming they have oral palimony agreements now merely have to allege that the agreements were entered into before Gov. Chris Christie signed the 2010 legislation into law.
If you have that agreement, get to your lawyer and get it in writing, Scutari said.
If one party decides not to agree to get an agreement in writing, then you never really had an agreement, did you? Scutari said.
Sen. Robert Smith, D-Middlesex, asked how people who have oral palimony agreements would get notice of the new law.
How will they know when this goes into effect? he asked.
We make changes to the law all the time and people know it or they don't know it, Scutari said.
Smith and Sen. Nia Gill, D-Essex, voted against the bill, as did Sen. Kevin O�Toole, R-Essex, and Christopher Bateman, R-Somerset. Gill called the bill �unconscionable.�
Justice Barry Albin wrote the court�s opinion in Maeker.
�Nowhere in the text or legislative history...has the Legislature given any signal, express or implied, that it intended the new statute to extinguish previously formed lawful oral palimony agreements,� Albin said, adding that the Legislature �knows how to write a statute that applies retroactively.�
The underlying case involved a couple who lived together for 13 years and split up about a year and a half after the law was enacted.
Beverly Maeker claimed she cohabitated with William Ross, was repeatedly promised lifelong support, abandoned her career, was authorized to manage Ross� finances and was made executor and trustee of his will, which provided for �her comfortable support and maintenance� in the future, the opinion said.
In July 2011, Ross allegedly ended the relationship, moved out and stopped supporting Maeker, prompting her to file suit in the Chancery Division seeking enforcement of an oral palimony agreement, according to the opinion.
Ross moved for dismissal based on the 2010 palimony law, N.J.S.A. 25:1-5, which amended the Statute of Frauds. The legislation added palimony to the list of contracts that are unenforceable if not in writing, and provided that even written palimony agreements are void if not executed with the assistance of counsel for both sides.
Somerset County Superior Court Judge Thomas Miller denied the motion and granted Maeker�s cross-motion for pendente lite support of $6,000 a month. He found that the Legislature did not clearly indicate it meant to extinguish existing palimony claims, pointing out that the law took effect the day it was signed, without a grace period.
Appellate Division Judges Paulette Sapp-Peterson, Francine Axelrad and Michael Haas reversed, finding no evidence of legislative intent for exception of preexisting oral contracts.
Two amici, the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers and the New Jersey State Bar Association, supported Maeker�s position.
Maeker raised constitutional and equitable issues, but the Supreme Court ultimately decided the retroactivity issue entirely based on legislative intent, holding that the �Legislature, we presume, is aware that our courts will not retroactively apply a new provision of the Statute of Frauds to void a previously formed lawful oral contract in the absence of a clear legislative expression to the contrary.�
Albin said the statute �represents a sea change in the law� from the court�s 1979 decision in Kozlowski v. Kozlowski, which deemed palimony agreements between nonmarried couples�whether written or oral, express or implied�enforceable.
Couples who entered oral palimony contracts relying on Kozlowski �did not have to anticipate that the Legislature might, in the indefinite future, impose writing and counsel requirements that would invalidate their agreements,� Albin said.
Read more: http://www.njlawjournal.com/id=1202726074483/Lawmakers-Push-to-Make-Palimony-Law-Retroactive#ixzz3a20gHvV5