Crowe v. De Gioia
90 N.J. 126, 35 A.L.R. 4th 394, 447 A.2d 173 (1982)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A court may grant preliminary injunctive relief, such as temporary support and housing, in a lawsuit to enforce a support agreement between unmarried cohabitants by applying traditional equitable principles, even though statutory alimony is unavailable for non-marital relationships.
Facts:
- In 1960, Rose K. Crowe, a 38-year-old separated mother of seven, began a relationship with Sergio De Gioia, a 26-year-old single man.
- Shortly after meeting, Crowe and her children began living with and being financially supported by De Gioia.
- From 1967 to 1980, the parties lived together in a house owned by De Gioia.
- Crowe alleged that during their relationship, De Gioia repeatedly promised to support her for the rest of her life and share his assets with her.
- In return for his support, Crowe performed domestic duties, cared for De Gioia, assisted in his business ventures, and acted as his social partner, akin to a wife.
- In 1980, after a twenty-year relationship, De Gioia ended the relationship to marry another woman.
- Upon leaving, De Gioia allegedly promised Crowe a 'good settlement' for her support but failed to provide one, leaving her unskilled, unemployable, and without assets.
Procedural Posture:
- Rose K. Crowe sued Sergio De Gioia in the Chancery Division of the Superior Court, seeking to enforce an alleged support agreement.
- Crowe filed a motion for temporary relief, including support payments and the right to remain in the house owned by De Gioia.
- The Chancery Division granted Crowe temporary relief, ordering De Gioia to pay $125 per week, allowing her to remain in the house, and restraining him from transferring his assets.
- De Gioia was granted leave to appeal the trial court's order to the Appellate Division.
- A majority of the Appellate Division vacated the temporary relief order and remanded the case for trial in the Law Division, holding that interim relief was not available.
- The Supreme Court of New Jersey granted Crowe's motion for leave to appeal the interlocutory order of the Appellate Division.
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 court have the authority to grant temporary relief, such as interim support payments, in a lawsuit to enforce an alleged oral agreement for lifetime support between unmarried cohabitants?
Opinions:
Majority - Pollock, J.
Yes, a court has the authority to grant temporary relief in such cases. Although statutory alimony is reserved for matrimonial actions, courts may use their inherent equitable powers to issue a preliminary injunction. Such relief is appropriate here because the plaintiff faced irreparable harm—the loss of her home and only means of support—which could not be adequately redressed by monetary damages after a trial. The underlying legal right to enforce a cohabitation agreement is settled law under Kozlowski v. Kozlowski, and the plaintiff made a sufficient preliminary showing of a reasonable probability of success. Finally, a balancing of the hardships heavily favors granting temporary relief, as the potential devastation to Crowe far outweighs the financial inconvenience to De Gioia. Therefore, the Chancery Division has jurisdiction and the authority to award temporary relief to preserve the status quo.
Dissenting - Schreiber, J.
No, a court should not grant temporary relief under these circumstances. The majority's decision effectively creates a de facto marriage, circumventing the legislative proscription of common-law marriage and improperly granting a remedy reserved for married persons. Established equitable principles for preliminary relief are not met here: the material facts of the alleged agreement are sharply and explicitly controverted by the defendant, and the plaintiff has an adequate remedy at law in the form of money damages for breach of contract, as established in Kozlowski. The court's decision appears to be based on the parties' disparate wealth rather than settled legal principles. By framing the case as one for specific performance, the majority incorrectly transforms a legal contract dispute into an equitable action, depriving the defendant of his right to a jury trial.
Analysis:
This decision significantly enhances the practical enforceability of 'palimony' agreements first recognized in Kozlowski v. Kozlowski. By authorizing temporary relief, the court gives a powerful tool to financially dependent cohabitants, preventing them from facing destitution and homelessness while their contract claims are litigated. The case demonstrates the judiciary's willingness to adapt traditional equitable remedies to address the realities of modern non-marital relationships. It solidifies the role of Chancery courts in these disputes and narrows the gap in available remedies between married and unmarried couples, ensuring that a claim for support is not rendered meaningless by the claimant's inability to survive pending a final judgment.
