NJ & CT News

A Fully Performed Palimony Agreement Is Upheld, Despite Lack of a Writing

When legislation went into effect three years ago requiring all palimony agreements to be in writing if they are to be enforceable, all those who had entered into oral palimony agreements prior to the legislation but separated after it were left without recourse in case of breach. Or were they?

Not necessarily, according to a recent decision issued by Superior Court Judge Ned Rosenberg in a case involving actor Roscoe Orman, best known for playing the role of Gordon on Sesame Street. Orman and his partner, Sharon Joiner-Orman, began living together in the early 1970s, but they did not memorialize any agreements concerning their obligations to one another. They had four children together. Orman moved out of their shared house in 2010 and continued to pay some financial support to Joiner-Orman until 2012, when he married someone else. She sought a declaratory judgment that Orman must continue to support her, as he had promised, for the rest of her life; the court granted it, finding that by giving Orman 39 years of companionship, taking care of the home and raising the couple's four children, Joiner-Orman had “fully performed her end of the bargain.” Thus, the court found that the oral agreement must be enforced because Joiner-Orman had fully performed her side of the agreement and failure to enforce the agreement now would create an inequity. “There is no good reason why a partial ' or at the very least ' full performance exception should not apply to the context of palimony agreements,” Rosenberg concluded.

CONNECTICUT

Woman Whose Daughter Was Abducted During Supervised Visit Will Get Day in Court

A mother whose daughter was abducted by the child's father during a supervised visit overseen by the mother's lawyer may go forward with her suit against the lawyer who was supposed to be supervising the visits, Connecticut's Supreme Court has declared. The trial court had originally thrown the case out, although that decision was overturned by a mid-level appeals court.

The Iranian mother, Leyla Mirjavadi, and her daughter were granted political asylum in the United States. When the father moved to the United States, he gained visitation rights. The mother feared that he would try to kidnap their child, so she hired a lawyer to supervise the father's visits. One day in 1996, while one of these scheduled three-hour visits was taking place at a Stamford mall, the father took the child to the airport and was headed toward Turkey before the supervising lawyer even knew that they had gone. The child remains out of the mother's reach to this day. When the mother sued the lawyer for negligence, the trail court threw the suit out, concluding that the kidnapping was not foreseeable. That decision was turned over on appeal.

The State Supreme Court affirmed. It found the trial court's conclusion unsupportable in light of the fact that supervised visits were ordered, at least in part, for the express reason that there was evidence that the father might pose a flight risk if given unfettered access to his daughter.

“We're happy with an affirmance,” said the mother's lawyer, Brenden P. Leydon, of Tooher Wocl & Leydon in Stamford. “We're looking forward to going back to [the trial court] to prove our case. The heart of the matter ' is the reason that the [lawyer] was there for the supervision in the first place ' risk of flight.”

'

NEW JERSEY

Judge Orders State to Permit Same-Sex Marriage

n September, a New Jersey judge determined that the State's offer of civil union status to same-sex couples simply does not compare to the' status of “married,” because although the State of New Jersey treats married persons and those in civil unions equally, only “married” couples have access to federal marriage benefits. Therefore, Judge Mary Jacobson of Mercer County Superior Court ordered the State to begin permitting same-sex couples to marry as of Oct. 21. The judge explained why she was moved to issue the order, stating, “If the trend of federal agencies deeming civil union partners ineligible for benefits continues, plaintiffs will suffer even more, while their opposite-sex New Jersey counterparts continue to receive federal marital benefits for no reason other than the label placed upon their relationship by the state.” On Oct.1, Governor Chris Christie's administration asked for a stay of the order pending appeal, which it does not want to take to the Appellate Division but to New Jersey's Supreme Court.

A Fully Performed Palimony Agreement Is Upheld, Despite Lack of a Writing

When legislation went into effect three years ago requiring all palimony agreements to be in writing if they are to be enforceable, all those who had entered into oral palimony agreements prior to the legislation but separated after it were left without recourse in case of breach. Or were they?

Not necessarily, according to a recent decision issued by Superior Court Judge Ned Rosenberg in a case involving actor Roscoe Orman, best known for playing the role of Gordon on Sesame Street. Orman and his partner, Sharon Joiner-Orman, began living together in the early 1970s, but they did not memorialize any agreements concerning their obligations to one another. They had four children together. Orman moved out of their shared house in 2010 and continued to pay some financial support to Joiner-Orman until 2012, when he married someone else. She sought a declaratory judgment that Orman must continue to support her, as he had promised, for the rest of her life; the court granted it, finding that by giving Orman 39 years of companionship, taking care of the home and raising the couple's four children, Joiner-Orman had “fully performed her end of the bargain.” Thus, the court found that the oral agreement must be enforced because Joiner-Orman had fully performed her side of the agreement and failure to enforce the agreement now would create an inequity. “There is no good reason why a partial ' or at the very least ' full performance exception should not apply to the context of palimony agreements,” Rosenberg concluded.

CONNECTICUT

Woman Whose Daughter Was Abducted During Supervised Visit Will Get Day in Court

A mother whose daughter was abducted by the child's father during a supervised visit overseen by the mother's lawyer may go forward with her suit against the lawyer who was supposed to be supervising the visits, Connecticut's Supreme Court has declared. The trial court had originally thrown the case out, although that decision was overturned by a mid-level appeals court.

The Iranian mother, Leyla Mirjavadi, and her daughter were granted political asylum in the United States. When the father moved to the United States, he gained visitation rights. The mother feared that he would try to kidnap their child, so she hired a lawyer to supervise the father's visits. One day in 1996, while one of these scheduled three-hour visits was taking place at a Stamford mall, the father took the child to the airport and was headed toward Turkey before the supervising lawyer even knew that they had gone. The child remains out of the mother's reach to this day. When the mother sued the lawyer for negligence, the trail court threw the suit out, concluding that the kidnapping was not foreseeable. That decision was turned over on appeal.

The State Supreme Court affirmed. It found the trial court's conclusion unsupportable in light of the fact that supervised visits were ordered, at least in part, for the express reason that there was evidence that the father might pose a flight risk if given unfettered access to his daughter.

“We're happy with an affirmance,” said the mother's lawyer, Brenden P. Leydon, of Tooher Wocl & Leydon in Stamford. “We're looking forward to going back to [the trial court] to prove our case. The heart of the matter ' is the reason that the [lawyer] was there for the supervision in the first place ' risk of flight.”

'