Sopko v. Slackman (in Re Estate of Roccamonte) - 174 N.J. 381, 808 A.2d 838 (2002)

Rule:

New Jersey law recognizes that unmarried adult partners may choose to cohabit together in a marital-like relationship, and if one of those partners is induced to do so by a promise of support given her by the other, that promise will be enforced. The right to support does not derive from the relationship itself but rather is a right created by contract. Special considerations are taken into account to determine whether such a contract has been entered into and what its terms are. The palimony contract may be oral, and may be express or implied. The existence of the contract and its terms are ordinarily determinable not merely by what was said but by the parties' acts and conduct. Thus, a general promise of support for life, made by one party to the other with some form of consideration given by the other will suffice to form a contract. If such a promise of support for the promisee's lifetime is found to have been made, and that promise is broken, the court will enforce it by awarding the promisee a one-time lump sum in an amount predicated on the present value of the reasonable future support defendant promised to provide, computed by reference to the promisee's life expectancy. 

Facts:

Although the decedent never divorced his wife, he supported the life companion for many decades as they lived as husband and wife. When she sought to make a life for herself, she returned to the decedent after he promised to support her in comfort for the rest of her life. After the decedent died intestate, his estate, of which the decedent's son was executor, argued that there was no enforceable promise of support.

Issue:

Was the promise enforceable against the decedent’s estate?

Answer:

Yes

Conclusion:

The high court held that the appellate court had correctly determined that the decedent and the companion had at least an implied and possibly an express contract, according to which, in return for returning to the decedent and living as his wife, the companion was entitled to a palimony award. Under New Jersey law, such contracts were enforced by a one-time lump sum award in an amount predicated on the present value of the reasonable future support the decedent promised to provide, computed by reference to the companion's life expectancy. The high court also held that the trial court best equipped to make such a determination on remand was one focused on family law rather than probate.