NJSBA Family Law Section

Would you all agree that where a decedent who lived with a girlfriend died more than 6 years ago, it is now too late, under the statute of limitations for contract actions, which is 6 years from the date the cause of action arose, for the girlfriend to bring a claim (or in other words, any complaint could be dismissed on motion if the statute of limitations was raised as an affirmative defense)?

------------------------------
Robert Goldstein Esq.
Manalapan NJ
(732)972-1600
------------------------------

The statute would provide protection but even if it did not, I would think that laches would also apply.

Please make a note that my telephone and fax numbers have changed as indicated below.

W. S. Gerald Skey, Esq.
Law Offices of W. S. Gerald Skey, Esq.
Princeton Commerce Center, Suite G-60
29 Emmons Drive
Princeton, New Jersey 08540
Phone (609) 436-5222
Fax (609) 228-5242
www.skeylaw.com

This e-mail and any attachment(s) are private, confidential, may be legally privileged, and are intended only for the named recipient. If you are not the named recipient, you must not review, convert, copy, use or disseminate this e-mail or any attachment(s). Plese notify us by return e-mail and delete this message. If this e-mail contains a forwarded message or is a reply to a prior message, some or all of its contents or any attachment(s) may not have been produced by this Office. IRS CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE: To ensure compliance with IRS requirements, we inform you that any U.S. federal tax advice provided in this communication is not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used by the recipient or any other taxpayer, (i) for the purpose of avoiding tax penalites that may be imposed on the recipient or any other taxpayer, or (ii) in promoting, marketing or recommending to another party a partnerhip or other entity, investment plan, arrangement or other transaction addressed herein.


Original Message------

Would you all agree that where a decedent who lived with a girlfriend died more than 6 years ago, it is now too late, under the statute of limitations for contract actions, which is 6 years from the date the cause of action arose, for the girlfriend to bring a claim (or in other words, any complaint could be dismissed on motion if the statute of limitations was raised as an affirmative defense)?

------------------------------
Robert Goldstein Esq.
Manalapan NJ
(732)972-1600
------------------------------

I'd certainly plead the statute of limitations, but I think more facts would be needed to say for sure. You're saying (to use invented names):

1. Pat and Carmen "enter into a palimony contract"
2. Carmen dies.
3. Over six years later, Pat files an action after Carmen's estate?
4. The beneficiaries of the estate (say, Carmen's kids?) are the ones fighting Pat on this?

If there's no other facts, it sounds like it'd be dismissed on the statute of limitations.

But.... Possible flies in the ointment -

-- When did Pat reasonably become aware of the claim? Perhaps there was a delay period during which one wouldn't reasonably have thought a claim could be brought, say in the period between the legislature amending Statute of Frauds, N.J.S.A. 25:1-5(h) and the Supreme Court's decision in Maeker v. Ross? Would that buy some time against the statute of limitations defense?

-- Was Pat incapacitated somehow and unable to pursue the claim earlier?

-- Did Carmen's kids do anything (like continuing to let Pat live in the house once shared with Carmen, or give some kind of allowance) that might have induced Pat not to pursue the claim earlier?

-- If Pat "partially performed" on the contract, it's not subject to the statute of frauds anyway (the issue left undecided in Maeker)... would there be an angle in there to try to get around the statute of limitations affirmative defense?

...And what's the overall equities? If Carmen was well-off and Pat is going to be on public assistance, stopped working while Carmen provided everything and thus never even paid into social security and thus will now have to live on $785 a month, a court might work at finding a way around the statute of limitations.


In other words -- as every lawyer says "yes - definitely - that's a dead ringer" on any issue?  The answer, of course, is "it depends."  :-)


________________________
David Perry Davis, Esq.
112 West Franklin Avenue
Pennington, NJ 08534
www.FamilyLawNJ.pro
Voice: 609-737-2222
Fax: 609-737-3222
________________________

Dave:

No Kids. Decedent and woman resided together for several years. Both worked although decedent made a lot more. Never married.

Decedent killed in a work-related accident more than 6 years ago. Former live-in girlfriend of decedent tells executrix (who has given girlfriend some of decedent's assets as a matter of helping her out financially) that she is now suing for palimony, more than 6 years after decedent died, to protect her own interests. I think she is SOL, but I wanted to confirm as we may represent estate if it is served with a lawsuit.

No incapacity. No public assistance. This is not a Statute of Frauds issue.

------------------------------
Robert Goldstein Esq.
Manalapan NJ
(732)972-1600
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 07-24-2015 14:36
From: David Perry Davis
Subject: Palimony claim against an estate and the Statute of limitations

I'd certainly plead the statute of limitations, but I think more facts would be needed to say for sure. You're saying (to use invented names):

1. Pat and Carmen "enter into a palimony contract"
2. Carmen dies.
3. Over six years later, Pat files an action after Carmen's estate?
4. The beneficiaries of the estate (say, Carmen's kids?) are the ones fighting Pat on this?

If there's no other facts, it sounds like it'd be dismissed on the statute of limitations.

But.... Possible flies in the ointment -

-- When did Pat reasonably become aware of the claim? Perhaps there was a delay period during which one wouldn't reasonably have thought a claim could be brought, say in the period between the legislature amending Statute of Frauds, N.J.S.A. 25:1-5(h) and the Supreme Court's decision in Maeker v. Ross? Would that buy some time against the statute of limitations defense?

-- Was Pat incapacitated somehow and unable to pursue the claim earlier?

-- Did Carmen's kids do anything (like continuing to let Pat live in the house once shared with Carmen, or give some kind of allowance) that might have induced Pat not to pursue the claim earlier?

-- If Pat "partially performed" on the contract, it's not subject to the statute of frauds anyway (the issue left undecided in Maeker)... would there be an angle in there to try to get around the statute of limitations affirmative defense?

...And what's the overall equities? If Carmen was well-off and Pat is going to be on public assistance, stopped working while Carmen provided everything and thus never even paid into social security and thus will now have to live on $785 a month, a court might work at finding a way around the statute of limitations.


In other words -- as every lawyer says "yes - definitely - that's a dead ringer" on any issue?  The answer, of course, is "it depends."  :-)


________________________
David Perry Davis, Esq.
112 West Franklin Avenue
Pennington, NJ 08534
www.FamilyLawNJ.pro
Voice: 609-737-2222
Fax: 609-737-3222
________________________