Palimony Agreements Need Attorney Review
Prior to the year 2010, the New Jersey courts had treated the law of palimony quite liberally with respect to a promise by a person in an unmarried…
March 13, 2022 at 10:00 AM
4 minute read
Prior to the year 2010, the New Jersey courts had treated the law of palimony quite liberally with respect to a promise by a person in an unmarried relationship to provide support to the other for the remainder of her life. In Kozlowski v Kozlowski, 80 NJ 378 (1979), the court concluded "that the judicial barriers that may stand in the way of a policy based upon fulfillment of the reasonable expectations of parties to a non-marital relationship should be removed," and that express or implied agreements involving promises for support for the rest of one's life were enforceable. As explained in In re Estate of Roccamonte, 174 NJ 381 (2002), Kozlowski "recognized that unmarried adult partners, even those who may be married to others, have the right to cohabit in a marital-like relationship, and if one of those partners is induced to do so by a promise of support given her by the other, that promise will be enforced by the court." (Crowe v. DeGioia, 90 NJ 126 (1982), the court held that temporary relief was available based on the principles announced in Kozlowski.)
This content has been archived.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 AllNJ Appellate Division Holds 'Clickwrap' Arbitration Provision Enforceable
5 minute readAppellate Division Ruling on Uber Eats Contract Highlights Evolution of 'Holding the Pen' Concepts
3 minute readFortune 500 Company Sues Metals Supplier Alleging It Used Proprietary Info Obtained During Bidding Process to Poach Talent
'A Confounding Record' Results in Sanctions for Discovery Violations in NJ Fed Court
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 111 Red State AGs Demand Damages in Antitrust Lawsuit Shaming ESG Climate Investors
- 2In-House Moves of Month: Discover Fills Awkward CLO Opening, Allegion GC Lasts Just 3 Months
- 3Delaware Court Holds Stance on Musk's $55.8B Pay Rescission, Awards Shareholder Counsel $345M
- 4'Go 12 Rounds' or Settle: Rear-End Collision Leads to $2.25M Presuit Settlement
- 52 Federal Judges Rescind Senior Status After Trump Win. Might More Follow?
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