In re Estate of Roccamonte
808 A.2d 838 (2002)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An oral promise of lifetime support made by one party to another in a long-term, marital-like relationship is an enforceable contract. This contractual obligation is not discharged by the promisor's death and may be enforced against the promisor's estate.
Facts:
- Mary Sopko and Arthur Roccamonte, who were both married to other people, began an affair in the 1950s.
- After Roccamonte refused to divorce his wife, Sopko moved to California in the mid-1960s to end their relationship.
- Roccamonte persuaded Sopko to return to New Jersey by promising that he would divorce his wife and provide for her financially for the rest of her life.
- Relying on his promises, Sopko returned, divorced her husband, and lived with Roccamonte in a continuous, marital-like relationship for approximately 25 years until his death in 1995.
- Throughout their relationship, Roccamonte provided Sopko with a lavish lifestyle, including an apartment titled in her name, weekly cash allowances, and other financial support.
- When Sopko grew concerned about her financial security, Roccamonte repeatedly assured her, sometimes in front of others, that he would provide for her for her entire life.
- Roccamonte never divorced his wife and died intestate (without a will) in 1995, leaving Sopko with minimal assets and no provision for her future support.
Procedural Posture:
- Mary Sopko filed a complaint against the Estate of Arthur Roccamonte in the Chancery Division, Family Part, seeking enforcement of a promise for lifetime support.
- The case was transferred to the Chancery Division, Probate Part.
- The trial court (Probate Part) granted summary judgment in favor of the Estate, dismissing Sopko's complaint.
- Sopko appealed to the Appellate Division, which reversed the summary judgment and remanded for a full trial on the merits of her palimony claim (Roccamonte I).
- Following a trial on remand, the Probate Part judge again dismissed Sopko's complaint.
- Sopko appealed for a second time to the Appellate Division.
- A majority of the Appellate Division panel reversed the trial court, finding an enforceable promise of support; one judge dissented (Roccamonte II).
- The Estate of Arthur Roccamonte then appealed as of right to the Supreme Court of New Jersey based on the dissent in 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 an oral promise of lifetime support, made to induce and maintain a long-term marital-like cohabitation, become unenforceable against the promisor's estate upon the promisor's death?
Opinions:
Majority - Pressler, P.J.A.D.
No, an oral promise of lifetime support made in a marital-like relationship is an enforceable contract against the promisor's estate. The court reasoned that the right to 'palimony' support is based on contract law, not the relationship itself. The consideration for the promise is the promisee's entry into and performance within the unique marital-like relationship, which includes providing companionship and foregoing other opportunities; it does not require the performance of specific domestic services or complete financial dependency. The promise of lifetime support is not a contract for personal services that terminates upon death; rather, it is a financial obligation that, if unfulfilled during the promisor's lifetime, becomes a binding commitment upon the estate, just like any other contractual debt.
Analysis:
This decision significantly expands the palimony doctrine established in Kozlowski v. Kozlowski by holding that a promise of lifetime support survives the death of the promisor. It solidifies the contractual nature of palimony claims and clarifies that their enforceability is not contingent upon the promisee being completely dependent or performing traditional housekeeping services. By allowing claims against an estate, the court provides greater financial security for long-term, unmarried partners, treating the promise of support as a legitimate contractual debt that must be honored after death. This precedent strengthens the legal standing of cohabitants and will influence estate planning and litigation involving unmarried partners.
Unlock the full brief for In re Estate of Roccamonte