Without Written Palimony Pact, Court Declines to Award Share of Estate
The longtime live-in girlfriend of a wealthy Jersey Shore mattress magnate will not be allowed to share in any portion of his estate.
November 17, 2017 at 02:44 PM
5 minute read
Shutterstock
The longtime live-in partner of a wealthy Jersey Shore mattress magnate will not be allowed to share in any portion of his estate, despite allegedly saying he would provide for her in the event of his death, a New Jersey appeals court ruled.
In an unpublished opinion Nov. 17, a two-judge Appellate Division panel said Barbara Terranova had no claim to any of the assets of Stuart Paer.
In short, Judges Carmen Alvarez and Greta Gooden Brown said that, since there was no written palimony agreement stating that Paer would take care of Terranova's future, she could not state a claim.
The ruling described Paer as a “retail mattress tycoon,” but did not detail the size of his estate. The lawyers representing Terranova and Paer's daughters—who are challenging Terranova's demands for a share of Paer's estate—did not return calls seeking more information.
Terranova and Paer were involved in a relationship from 1996 to 2011, the ruling said.
“Over the course of the couple's 15-year relationship, they worked together, lived together, traveled together, and existed as a family unit,” the appeals court said. “They held themselves out to the world as husband and wife.”
The suit claims that Paer promised that he would provide for Terranova financially. However, the appeals court noted that the promise was never put in writing, as required by a 2010 law enacted by the Legislature and affirmed by the state Supreme Court in its 2014 ruling, Maeker v. Ross.
In his will, Paer named his two daughters, Natasha and Alyssa Paer, as his sole beneficiaries, even though the ruling said Terranova acted as their mother.
The daughters are fighting Terranova's challenge to a trial judge's ruling that she has no claim to Stuart Paer's estate.
The appeals court noted that the lawsuit must also be subject to the doctrine of finality, especially since it has been pending for nearly seven years.
“To rule otherwise would severely and unfairly prejudice defendants,” the judges said.
Angelo Sarno of Roseland's Snyder Sarno D'Aniello Maceri & da Costa represented Terranova. Matthew Fiorovanti of Giordano, Halleran & Ciesla in Red Bank represented Paer's estate.
Shutterstock
The longtime live-in partner of a wealthy Jersey Shore mattress magnate will not be allowed to share in any portion of his estate, despite allegedly saying he would provide for her in the event of his death, a New Jersey appeals court ruled.
In an unpublished opinion Nov. 17, a two-judge Appellate Division panel said Barbara Terranova had no claim to any of the assets of Stuart Paer.
In short, Judges Carmen Alvarez and Greta Gooden Brown said that, since there was no written palimony agreement stating that Paer would take care of Terranova's future, she could not state a claim.
The ruling described Paer as a “retail mattress tycoon,” but did not detail the size of his estate. The lawyers representing Terranova and Paer's daughters—who are challenging Terranova's demands for a share of Paer's estate—did not return calls seeking more information.
Terranova and Paer were involved in a relationship from 1996 to 2011, the ruling said.
“Over the course of the couple's 15-year relationship, they worked together, lived together, traveled together, and existed as a family unit,” the appeals court said. “They held themselves out to the world as husband and wife.”
The suit claims that Paer promised that he would provide for Terranova financially. However, the appeals court noted that the promise was never put in writing, as required by a 2010 law enacted by the Legislature and affirmed by the state Supreme Court in its 2014 ruling, Maeker v. Ross.
In his will, Paer named his two daughters, Natasha and Alyssa Paer, as his sole beneficiaries, even though the ruling said Terranova acted as their mother.
The daughters are fighting Terranova's challenge to a trial judge's ruling that she has no claim to Stuart Paer's estate.
The appeals court noted that the lawsuit must also be subject to the doctrine of finality, especially since it has been pending for nearly seven years.
“To rule otherwise would severely and unfairly prejudice defendants,” the judges said.
Angelo Sarno of Roseland's
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllOn the Move and After Hours: Javerbaum Wurgaft; Sills Cummis; Spiro Harrison; CSG Law
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Abbott, Mead Johnson Win Defense Verdict Over Preemie Infant Formula
- 3Preparing Your Law Firm for 2025: Smart Ways to Embrace AI & Other Technologies
- 4Meet the Lawyers on Kamala Harris' Transition Team
- 5Trump Files $10B Suit Against CBS in Amarillo Federal Court
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250