NJ & CT News

NEW JERSEY

Timing, Palimony Claims and The Statute of Frauds

New Jersey's Appellate Division is set to consider the retroactivity of a one-year-old revision to the statute of frauds that says that agreements between unmarried parties requiring one of them to support the other must be in writing. The case, Botis v. Estate of Kudrick, FM-13-371-09C, involves an alleged promise made by a man to his live-in girlfriend of 33 years that his house would go to her upon his death. Twenty-four years before her partner's death, the plaintiff, Barbara Botis, had sold her own house and used the proceeds of the sale to expand the home she shared with him, which was in his name only. After the man's death, however, the decedent's daughter ordered Botis out of the house, prompting Botis's palimony suit against the estate. The revision to N.J.S.A. 25:1-5(h), which was signed by Gov. Jon Corzine in January 2010, stated that it would “take effect immediately.” However, nothing in the statute made clear whether that language affected all such agreements, no matter when made, or only those entered into after the date of signing ' Jan. 18, 2010. At trial, Superior Court Judge Joseph Quinn declined to apply the revised statute retroactively, in part because the law was changed 18 months after the decedent's death, and in part because, prior to that change, New Jersey's courts had for 30 years been permitted to enforce oral support agreements.

CONNECTICUT

Bachelor's Degrees Alone Do Not Give Parties Equal Financial Footing

The appellate division took the unusual step of overriding a trial judge's decision to deny a woman alimony, finding that the lower court had overreached when it declared that because each party had “equal standing in their education level” and the woman was bilingual, she could support herself unaided. The trial court gave short shrift to the fact that the woman, who held a bachelor-of-arts degree, had earned only $13 to $15 throughout the marriage, and had never made more than $25,000 per year. Meanwhile, the husband, who had earned a bachelor's degree in finance, made approximately $120,000 per year. On appeal, the wife sought limited-duration alimony, to help her advance her education so that she could earn more in the future. In reversing the lower court on this issue, the appellate court stated: “No evidence was presented that would tend to show that the plaintiff could earn more than the salary that she earned throughout the marriage without additional education and training. In light of the court's emphasis on 'equal … education level' as opposed to actual historical earnings, we cannot conclude that it was reasonable for the court to decide as it did based on the facts found or the evidence presented.”

NEW JERSEY

Timing, Palimony Claims and The Statute of Frauds

New Jersey's Appellate Division is set to consider the retroactivity of a one-year-old revision to the statute of frauds that says that agreements between unmarried parties requiring one of them to support the other must be in writing. The case, Botis v. Estate of Kudrick, FM-13-371-09C, involves an alleged promise made by a man to his live-in girlfriend of 33 years that his house would go to her upon his death. Twenty-four years before her partner's death, the plaintiff, Barbara Botis, had sold her own house and used the proceeds of the sale to expand the home she shared with him, which was in his name only. After the man's death, however, the decedent's daughter ordered Botis out of the house, prompting Botis's palimony suit against the estate. The revision to N.J.S.A. 25:1-5(h), which was signed by Gov. Jon Corzine in January 2010, stated that it would “take effect immediately.” However, nothing in the statute made clear whether that language affected all such agreements, no matter when made, or only those entered into after the date of signing ' Jan. 18, 2010. At trial, Superior Court Judge Joseph Quinn declined to apply the revised statute retroactively, in part because the law was changed 18 months after the decedent's death, and in part because, prior to that change, New Jersey's courts had for 30 years been permitted to enforce oral support agreements.

CONNECTICUT

Bachelor's Degrees Alone Do Not Give Parties Equal Financial Footing

The appellate division took the unusual step of overriding a trial judge's decision to deny a woman alimony, finding that the lower court had overreached when it declared that because each party had “equal standing in their education level” and the woman was bilingual, she could support herself unaided. The trial court gave short shrift to the fact that the woman, who held a bachelor-of-arts degree, had earned only $13 to $15 throughout the marriage, and had never made more than $25,000 per year. Meanwhile, the husband, who had earned a bachelor's degree in finance, made approximately $120,000 per year. On appeal, the wife sought limited-duration alimony, to help her advance her education so that she could earn more in the future. In reversing the lower court on this issue, the appellate court stated: “No evidence was presented that would tend to show that the plaintiff could earn more than the salary that she earned throughout the marriage without additional education and training. In light of the court's emphasis on 'equal … education level' as opposed to actual historical earnings, we cannot conclude that it was reasonable for the court to decide as it did based on the facts found or the evidence presented.”