Devaney v. L'ESPERANCE
2008 N.J. LEXIS 609, 195 N.J. 247, 949 A.2d 743 (2008)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Cohabitation is not an essential element for a cause of action for palimony. However, a claimant must prove the existence of a 'marital-type relationship,' which is determined by assessing the totality of the circumstances of the parties' relationship.
Facts:
- In 1983, Helen Devaney began a romantic relationship with her employer, Francis L'Esperance, Jr., who was married and living with his wife.
- Throughout their twenty-year relationship, L'Esperance repeatedly promised Devaney that he would divorce his wife and marry her.
- For the first ten years, the parties saw each other regularly and vacationed together, but L'Esperance invariably returned home to his wife and rarely stayed overnight with Devaney.
- In 1993, Devaney moved to Seattle due to L'Esperance's unfulfilled promises; he sent her money monthly during this time.
- In 1997, L'Esperance persuaded Devaney to return to New Jersey, showing her a signed separation agreement and promising to marry her, have a child, and buy her a home.
- Upon her return, L'Esperance leased and later purchased a condominium for Devaney, paid for her education and expenses, but continued to live with his wife and spent only a few nights a week at the condo.
- In 2003, L'Esperance decided he no longer wanted a child with Devaney and ended their relationship.
- After Devaney began a new relationship in 2004, L'Esperance was denied entry to the condominium he owned.
Procedural Posture:
- Helen Devaney filed a complaint for palimony against Francis L'Esperance, Jr. in the Family Part of the New Jersey Superior Court (trial court).
- Following a bench trial, the trial court judge denied Devaney's complaint, finding that the parties did not have a marital-type relationship.
- Devaney, as appellant, appealed the trial court's decision to the Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior Court.
- The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that cohabitation is an indispensable element of a palimony claim.
- The Supreme Court of New Jersey granted Devaney's petition for certification to review the Appellate Division's decision.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is cohabitation an essential requirement for a cause of action for palimony?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Wallace, Jr.
No. Cohabitation is not an essential requirement for a palimony claim; rather, the indispensable elements are a promise of support, either express or implied, coupled with a marital-type relationship. The existence of a marital-type relationship is determined by the totality of the circumstances, and while cohabitation is a highly relevant factor, its absence is not dispositive. The court cited In re Estate of Roccamonte for its definition of a marital-type relationship as one of mutual commitment, companionship, and fulfillment of each other’s needs. In this case, the trial court correctly analyzed the entirety of the relationship—noting the lack of cohabitation, commingled property, and public presentation as a married couple—and justifiably concluded that the parties had a 'dating relationship,' not a marital-type one sufficient to support a palimony claim.
Concurring - Justice Long
No. Justice Long concurs with the majority's framework as it applies to an implied contract case like this one but writes separately to emphasize that the 'marital-type relationship' requirement should not be a bar to enforcing an express contract for support. Standard contract law dictates that if a party proves an express promise of lifetime support and that they provided some other form of bargained-for consideration, they should be entitled to recover, regardless of whether their relationship was 'marital-type.' To hold otherwise would improperly elevate palimony into a special cause of action based on relationship status rather than on contract principles.
Concurring - Justice Rivera-Soto
Yes. Justice Rivera-Soto concurs only in the result, arguing that cohabitation should be an essential requirement for a palimony claim. He contends that prior New Jersey precedent and the law in the vast majority of other states presuppose cohabitation as a necessary element. He warns that removing cohabitation as a 'bright-line requirement' is dangerous public policy that opens the door to 'duplicitous manipulation' and could turn every long-term dating relationship into a potential lawsuit for support. He argues that cohabitation serves as a crucial 'safety valve' against meritless claims and provides clear notice to the parties of the potential legal consequences of their relationship.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies New Jersey's palimony doctrine by replacing a rigid, bright-line rule with a flexible, fact-intensive standard. By holding that cohabitation is not essential, the court opened the door for claims from couples in non-traditional living arrangements, such as those separated by work or other obligations. However, this flexibility also increases uncertainty in litigation, as the determination of a 'marital-type relationship' now rests on a trial court's evaluation of the 'totality of the circumstances.' The case reinforces the special expertise of Family Part judges in assessing the nuanced realities of personal relationships and will likely lead to more detailed factual inquiries in future palimony disputes.
