Monday, March 5, 2018
The parties were involved in a romantic relationship wherein woman asserted man induced her to live with him and start a family. She further claimed man asserted he would support her for the rest of his life; however, the alleged agreement was never reduced to writing. Subsequently, woman contended that man had a "change of heart." The Appellate Division determined that palimony agreements did not derive exclusively from the family relationship, and were primarily contractual in nature. As such, the legislature's inclusion of palimony within the Statute of Frauds was protective of an individual's right to contract, not an infringement on the family unit. prohibit individuals from making personal decisions or having the freedom of personal development. Neither a plain reading of the statute nor its legislative history lent support to woman's claim that the law targeted the privacy rights of women out-of-wedlock. Finally, the court noted that the statute did not require written palimony agreements; rather, "if the parties seek aid of the court in enforcing their agreement, then the agreement must be in writing." As the statute did not violate equal protections.