NJSBA Family Law Section

Hi everyone-

I have a client who has lived with her current husband for twenty years but only married for the last two years.
During their cohabitation period, they bought a home in Husband's name only, had three children and started a business together which is only in husband's name but is operated by my client. What is everyone's feelings about alimony and/ or palimony under these circumstances. It seems like there should be equitable arguments that my client should share in the business / house values since they have lived together and held themselves out as husband and wife since 1994 evethough they have only been married since 2012. Thoughts?




[cid:[email protected]]<http: www.charnylaw.com/="">

Confidentiality Notice: This message is confidential, intended only for the named recipient(s) or entity (ies) and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient(s), you are hereby notified that the dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited, and you are requested to notify us immediately by email or by calling Charny, Charny & Karpousis, P.A. at 856.505.1700, and delete the message forthwith. Thank you for your cooperation.</http:>

It's been adjudicated.  McGee v. McGee.... App Div case, almost the same facts.  Stay away from calling it "palimony" in any way, shape, or form, though - stick to the language of the case.  Palimony is a hornet's nest right now.

I'll grab you the cite.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7927170964743843359

Defendant Carol McGee challenges certain aspects of the final judgment of divorce which dissolved her marriage to plaintiff, Paul McGee. On appeal, Mrs. McGee argues that the trial judge erred in his award of equitable distribution by failing to consider the premarital history of the parties; improperly awarded her "rehabilitative alimony" when permanent alimony was warranted; and neglected to apply the proper standards to her motion for counsel fees. Upon careful analysis of this record in light of these contentions, we reverse.

And check out the cases that cite to it:

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?about=7927170964743843359&q=mcgee&hl=en&as_sdt=4,31

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

Thanks Dave for supplying the link to the McGee case.  

Sometimes we don't have time to stop and research a question or case posted but would take the minute or two to click on a link to have a quick look see.  

I always appreciate it when you (and others) make the effort to attach a link.  

------------------------------
Lisa M. Radell, Esq.
207 South Main Street
Cape May Court House, NJ 08210
Phone (609) 465-9910
Fax (609) 465-9920
E-Mail [email protected]
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 05-19-2015 14:08
From: David Perry Davis
Subject: Palimony/alimony

It's been adjudicated.  McGee v. McGee.... App Div case, almost the same facts.  Stay away from calling it "palimony" in any way, shape, or form, though - stick to the language of the case.  Palimony is a hornet's nest right now.

I'll grab you the cite.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7927170964743843359

Defendant Carol McGee challenges certain aspects of the final judgment of divorce which dissolved her marriage to plaintiff, Paul McGee. On appeal, Mrs. McGee argues that the trial judge erred in his award of equitable distribution by failing to consider the premarital history of the parties; improperly awarded her "rehabilitative alimony" when permanent alimony was warranted; and neglected to apply the proper standards to her motion for counsel fees. Upon careful analysis of this record in light of these contentions, we reverse.

And check out the cases that cite to it:

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?about=7927170964743843359&q=mcgee&hl=en&as_sdt=4,31

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

Berrie v. Berrie may help.


Original Message------

Hi everyone-

I have a client who has lived with her current husband for twenty years but only married for the last two years.
During their cohabitation period, they bought a home in Husband's name only, had three children and started a business together which is only in husband's name but is operated by my client. What is everyone's feelings about alimony and/ or palimony under these circumstances. It seems like there should be equitable arguments that my client should share in the business / house values since they have lived together and held themselves out as husband and wife since 1994 evethough they have only been married since 2012. Thoughts?




[cid:[email protected]]<http: www.charnylaw.com/="">

Confidentiality Notice: This message is confidential, intended only for the named recipient(s) or entity (ies) and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient(s), you are hereby notified that the dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited, and you are requested to notify us immediately by email or by calling Charny, Charny & Karpousis, P.A. at 856.505.1700, and delete the message forthwith. Thank you for your cooperation.</http:>

Chuck:

There is a somewhat similar (or analogous) reported case. H was a doc. Wife worked for him. She owned house. He bought it out of foreclosure. His income was used to pay his child support. Can't remember name. Maybe someone else can

Sent from my iPhone


Original Message------

Berrie v. Berrie may help.

I think he is referring to McGee v. McGee, 277 NJ Super 1, which was written by Justice Long when she was in the app div.

------------------------------
Michael A. Gill, Esq.
660 New Road
Northfield, N.J. 08225
609-646-0222
www.gmslaw.com
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 05-19-2015 15:50
From: Bonnie Reiss
Subject: Palimony/alimony

Chuck:

There is a somewhat similar (or analogous) reported case. H was a doc. Wife worked for him. She owned house. He bought it out of foreclosure. His income was used to pay his child support. Can't remember name. Maybe someone else can

Sent from my iPhone

Yes, It was McGee v. McGee. I tried the case and the App. Division
tried every way possible to have him pay perm or long term alimony.
They lived together for about 5+ years and were married for about two.
The Wife was about 55 (if I remember). However, this case was
primarily focused on alimony not ED. Can you include a count in the
complaint for partition as to the home and business?

--
Law Office of Peter J. Laemers
97 Main Street
Newton, New Jersey 07860
Office 973-383-7600
Fax 973-383-0205

This electronic message and any attachments are for the sole use of
the intended recipient(s). They may contain confidential and/or
privileged information or other information subject to legal
restrictions regarding disclosure and/or dissemination. If you are not
an intended recipient of this message, any review, retransmission,
copying, use, disclosure, or dissemination of this message or its
attachments is prohibited. If you received this message in error
please notify the sender by replying to this message and deleting or
destroying all copies of this message and any attachments. Circular
230 Disclosure: To comply with U.S. Treasury Regulations, we inform
you that, unless otherwise expressly indicated, any tax advice
contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not
intended or written to be used, and cannot be used by the recipient or
any other person, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties that may
be imposed under the Internal Revenue Code or any other applicable tax
law, or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any
transaction, arrangement or other matter addressed herein. Thank you.

As a reminder, your email is very important, however, because of my
schedule, I am not always able to answer emails on the day they are
received. If your matter is time sensitive, please contact my office
973-383-7600 and speak with my staff directly.
Thank you.


Original Message------

I think he is referring to McGee v. McGee, 277 NJ Super 1, which was written by Justice Long when she was in the app div.

------------------------------
Michael A. Gill, Esq.
660 New Road
Northfield, N.J. 08225
609-646-0222
www.gmslaw.com
------------------------------


Original Message:
Sent: 05-19-2015 15:50
From: Bonnie Reiss
Subject: Palimony/alimony

Chuck:

There is a somewhat similar (or analogous) reported case. H was a doc. Wife worked for him. She owned house. He bought it out of foreclosure. His income was used to pay his child support. Can't remember name. Maybe someone else can

Sent from my iPhone

That's right. My memory is not what it used to be. It is a great opinion

Sent from my iPhone


Original Message------

Yes, It was McGee v. McGee. I tried the case and the App. Division
tried every way possible to have him pay perm or long term alimony.
They lived together for about 5+ years and were married for about two.
The Wife was about 55 (if I remember). However, this case was
primarily focused on alimony not ED. Can you include a count in the
complaint for partition as to the home and business?

--
Law Office of Peter J. Laemers
97 Main Street
Newton, New Jersey 07860
Office 973-383-7600
Fax 973-383-0205

This electronic message and any attachments are for the sole use of
the intended recipient(s). They may contain confidential and/or
privileged information or other information subject to legal
restrictions regarding disclosure and/or dissemination. If you are not
an intended recipient of this message, any review, retransmission,
copying, use, disclosure, or dissemination of this message or its
attachments is prohibited. If you received this message in error
please notify the sender by replying to this message and deleting or
destroying all copies of this message and any attachments. Circular
230 Disclosure: To comply with U.S. Treasury Regulations, we inform
you that, unless otherwise expressly indicated, any tax advice
contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not
intended or written to be used, and cannot be used by the recipient or
any other person, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties that may
be imposed under the Internal Revenue Code or any other applicable tax
law, or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any
transaction, arrangement or other matter addressed herein. Thank you.

As a reminder, your email is very important, however, because of my
schedule, I am not always able to answer emails on the day they are
received. If your matter is time sensitive, please contact my office
973-383-7600 and speak with my staff directly.
Thank you.

Don't forget Judge Fall's case of Rolle v. Rolle, 219 N.J. Super. 528 (1987). It is quite wonderfully instructive to compare the thinking of these two excellent, problem-solving jurists dealing with equitable issues obtaining variously to spousal support and equitable distribution. Read these carefully and sequentially, to get into their actual creative, yet rule of law-based problem solving processes. Please read them.

------------------------------
Curtis Romanowski Esq.
Senior Attorney - Proprietor
Metuchen NJ
(732)603-8585
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 05-19-2015 16:02
From: Michael Gill
Subject: Palimony/alimony

I think he is referring to McGee v. McGee, 277 NJ Super 1, which was written by Justice Long when she was in the app div.

------------------------------
Michael A. Gill, Esq.
660 New Road
Northfield, N.J. 08225
609-646-0222
www.gmslaw.com
------------------------------


Original Message:
Sent: 05-19-2015 15:50
From: Bonnie Reiss
Subject: Palimony/alimony

Chuck:

There is a somewhat similar (or analogous) reported case. H was a doc. Wife worked for him. She owned house. He bought it out of foreclosure. His income was used to pay his child support. Can't remember name. Maybe someone else can

Sent from my iPhone