Devaney v. L'Esperance
New Jersey Supreme Court
949 A.2d 743 (2008)
- Written by Brittany Frankel, JD
Facts
Helen Devaney (plaintiff) and Francis L’Esperance, Jr. (defendant) were involved in a 20-year romantic relationship. For the entirety of the relationship, Francis was married to another woman. Over the 20-year relationship, Francis promised Helen that he would divorce his wife and father a child with her. Francis paid some of Helen’s bills and gave her a monthly stipend. Francis also paid for Helen’s college education and purchased a condominium for her to live in. However, Francis and Helen never cohabitated. Francis ended the relationship with Helen and filed an action to have her ejected from the condominium. The trial court granted Francis’s request, and the trial court’s decision was affirmed on appeal. Helen then filed a complaint for palimony, which is the division of assets and real property on the termination of a personal co-habitation relationship in which the parties involved are not legally married. A bench trial was held before a family judge. The family judge denied Helen’s complaint. The trial judge agreed and found that Helen and Francis’s relationship was nothing more than a dating relationship. The trial judge considered the lack of cohabitation as a factor in making the determination. Helen appealed. The appellate division affirmed the trial court’s ruling and found that cohabitation is a necessary element for a palimony action. Helen filed another appeal.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Wallace, J.)
Concurrence (Rivera-Soto, J.)
Concurrence (Long, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 814,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.