Anastasi v. Anastasi
544 F. Supp. 866, 1982 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14190 (1982)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A lawsuit between unmarried former cohabitants seeking enforcement of a support agreement falls within the domestic relations exception to federal diversity jurisdiction when the applicable state law requires courts to make equitable inquiries and provide remedies similar to those in matrimonial actions.
Facts:
- Plaintiff and Defendant, an unmarried couple, cohabited for a period of time.
- During their relationship, Defendant allegedly made an oral agreement to provide Plaintiff with all of her financial support and needs for the rest of her life.
- The relationship between Plaintiff and Defendant subsequently ended.
- After the relationship ended, Defendant allegedly breached the agreement by failing to provide the promised financial support.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Defendant in the Chancery Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey.
- Defendant removed the action to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey based on diversity of citizenship.
- The District Court initially denied a motion to remand the case to state court, holding that the claim was for breach of contract and did not fall within the domestic relations exception.
- After the New Jersey Supreme Court decided a controlling case (Crowe v. DeGioia), the District Court issued an order to show cause why the case should not be remanded to state court in light of the change in state law.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a lawsuit between unmarried former cohabitants seeking enforcement of a support agreement fall within the domestic relations exception to federal diversity jurisdiction when state law treats the action as an equitable matter requiring inquiries similar to those in matrimonial cases?
Opinions:
Majority - Debevoise, District Judge.
Yes. A lawsuit to enforce a support agreement between unmarried cohabitants falls within the domestic relations exception to federal jurisdiction when state law requires the court to perform functions characteristic of family courts. Following the New Jersey Supreme Court's decision in Crowe v. DeGioia, state law now treats these 'palimony' actions not as simple contract disputes but as equitable matters requiring ongoing judicial supervision. The state has recognized a significant interest in these relationships and has empowered its courts to grant interim relief, such as temporary support and payment of medical bills, which requires detailed inquiries into the parties' financial circumstances and relationship dynamics. This functional similarity to traditional matrimonial actions places such cases squarely within the domestic relations exception, which is designed to keep federal courts out of matters that state courts are better equipped to handle.
Analysis:
This decision illustrates the dynamic nature of the domestic relations exception to federal jurisdiction, showing how its application can expand based on the evolution of state substantive law. As states create new equitable remedies for non-traditional relationships, what might have previously been considered a standard contract claim can be re-characterized as a domestic relations matter. The case establishes that federal courts must look beyond the formal label of a claim (e.g., 'breach of contract') to the actual function the court would be required to perform. This reinforces the principle of federalism by leaving complex, evolving areas of family and relationship law to the expertise of state courts.
Unlock the full brief for Anastasi v. Anastasi