Mr. Davis:
I am not sure why you have once again levied unfounded, uninformed allegations against the Family Law Section and the State Bar Association. In fact, when the palimony bill was first introduced, the officers of the section (myself included) spent significant time lobbying the Senate Judiciary Committee. In fact, the section spent several executive committee meetings, under the excellent direction of then-Chair Charles Vuotto, drafting an alternative bill which addressed many of the concerns raised by the sponsor; this proposed alternative bill which was submitted to the sponsor, the Judiciary Committee members, and other members of the legislature. We further lobbied to find a sponsor for the proposed alternative bill. Notwithstanding our significant efforts, the sponsor was able to push through the Statute of Frauds amendment.
In fact, as you write your comments, the NJSBA is in the process of preparing an amicus brief in the Maeker case, as we have received permission to file same, to correct these injustices.
In sum, the State Bar is where it should be - on top of the issue and doing its best to protect our constituents.
-------------------------------------------
Brian Schwartz Esq.
Summit NJ
(908)219-4219
-------------------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 10-31-2013 15:55
From: David Perry Davis
Subject: Palimony absurdity - where was NJSBA and where are we?
I just another consult with someone who needs and deserves palimony but is out of luck.
The death of palimony has been discussed many times here, including the current case going to the Supreme Court with extreme facts showing how unjust the new law is.
The problem arose because the Supreme Court went way too far in extending palimony - holding that not even cohabitation was necessary to invoke the doctrine. (Much the way Gnall / 15 years=permanent is giving a huge push to alimony reform)
The palimony statute was a reaction to the Supreme Court decision (even notes so in the legislative statement).
Where NOW, Poverty Law Projects, and the NJSBA were is a mystery. I (and a few others) were yelling about this at every stage of the legislation, but no one listened (or no one acted).
More importantly, where are they now? Why hasn't legislation been introduced to fix it? Perhaps to un-do Roccamonte, but to permit palimony when appropriate? (I.e., when long-term cohabitation and demonstrated economic reliance is at issue).
Don't we have someone who can introduce legislation along these lines? What the legislature broke, the legislature can fix.
-------------------------------------------
David Perry Davis, Esq.
112 West Franklin Avenue
Pennington, NJ 08534
Voice: 609-737-2222
Fax: 609-737-3222
-------------------------------------------