On Sept. 25, 2014, the New Jersey Supreme Court issued a long-awaited ruling in the case of Maeker v. Ross, clarifying the current status of “palimony” in the state.

The decision settled a dispute in the lower courts regarding the effective date of a 2010 amendment to the New Jersey Statute of Frauds. This amendment, which required all agreements containing a promise to provide support or other consideration to a partner in a marriage-like personal relationship to be put into a signed writing after advice from counsel (N.J.S.A.??25:1-5(h)), proved highly controversial, as it dramatically changed previous case law that had allowed New Jersey courts to enforce oral as well as written palimony agreements.

As soon as the amendment became law, questions began to arise in the courts regarding both its effective date and whether or not “equitable defenses” would be allowed to overcome the new statutory requirements. In Maeker, an appellate court overturned a trial court decision awarding plaintiff temporary support, determining that the amendment was retroactive and therefore barred any action filed to enforce an oral promise, even if the promise itself was made before the amendment became law (Maeker v. Ross, 62 A. 3d 310 (App. Div. 2013)).