On March 8, 2022, In Moynihan v. Lynch, the New Jersey Supreme Court addressed whether a written “palimony agreement” entered between unmarried cohabitants could be enforced if the parties had not met with an attorney prior to signing it? The 2nd issue presented was whether an “oral” palimony claim could still be advanced in a lawsuit if the alleged oral palimony claim was made prior to the 2010 amendment to the statute of frauds?
By way of background, in 2010, our legislature amended the statute of frauds to do away with the enforceability of palimony claims based on oral promises. As a result of that change in the law, to advance a claim for palimony, 3 things were required:
1. The agreement had to be in writing;
2. The agreement had to be signed (at least by the party against whom enforcement is sought); and
3. The agreement had to be reviewed by a lawyer before it was signed to ensure that the parties understood the legal obligations imposed by its terms.
In Moynihan, the parties had a long-term "marital-style" relationship. As their relationship deteriorated, they signed and notarized a written agreement, without the benefit of counsel reviewing it before it was signed.
Their written agreement stated that if their relationship ended, Lynch would pay off the mortgage on their home, he would sign the paperwork to transfer title to the home into Moynihan’s name alone, pay Moynihan a lump sum of $100,000, and he would pay the real estate taxes on that home for a two-year period of time after he moved out.
Yet, when their relationship ended, Lynch reneged on the agreement, causing Moynihan to file a lawsuit seeking enforcement of their written agreement AND for enforcement of a separate alleged oral palimony agreement that she claimed occurred prior to the 2010 amendment to the statute of frauds.
Lynch opposed the lawsuit, arguing that the parties had no oral palimony agreement, and that their written agreement was unenforceable because it was made without the benefit of an attorney reviewing its terms with Lynch before he signed it.
The New Jersey Supreme Court held that Moynihan’s claim of an oral palimony agreement was barred by the amendment to the statute of frauds, but the high court ruled that the parties
written palimony agreement was enforceable even though neither party had a lawyer review it with him/her before they signed it.
In making that ruling, the NJ Supreme Court held that the statutory attorney-review requirement for written palimony agreements was unconstitutional because it violated a person’s right to make decisions for themselves without the compelled participation of an attorney.
As a result, unmarried cohabitants can freely enter into palimony agreements with their partners as to their respective rights and obligations in the event their relationship ends without the need to have a lawyer review it before signing it.