The rights and obligations to support, and the distribution of property acquired during the marriage upon the dissolution of the marriage, is addressed by statue.(1) Unmarried cohabitants may make a claim for palimony based upon a promise, either written or implied.(2) However, what one party may view as a promise to support may not have been the intention of the other party. This issue becomes even more complicated if that party dies and a claim is made against his/her estate.

Under the appropriate circumstances, the New Jersey Courts will provide compensation based upon the claim of a promise. These cases are varied, fact sensitive, and costly to litigate. Curiously, the Court has permitted recovery against someone who is deceased (3) and if a party is legally married to another person. A legally binding marriage is not the only contract the Court will uphold.

Last January, legislation was introduced (4), requiring that the above promises must be in writing to be binding. This would eliminate the uncertainty of whether a promise was actually made. The legislation was passed by the Senate in March and remains in the Assembly since May. Presently, under the appropriate circumstances, palimony is granted based upon equitable principles and property can be divided based upon theories embedded in contract law.

To avoid uncertainty, parties may enter into an agreement, known as a Cohabitation Agreement, setting forth their respective obligations arising from their relationship. Cohabitation Agreements are provided for by statute. Your attorney cannot guarantee that the agreement will be upheld if contested in the future. However, at the very least, entering into a Cohabitation Agreement eliminates some of the uncertainty arising from alleged agreements made between unmarried people.

Relationships are as complex as they are varied. Unfortunately, the good intentions which one enters into the relationship with may evaporate upon termination of the relationship. When parties are not married, their rights to compensation and division of assets acquired during their relationship can be muddied by the lack of statutory guidance and the fact sensitive nature of the present case law.