Logourl black
From our private database of 14,000+ case briefs...

Devaney v. L'Esperance

Supreme Court of New Jersey
949 A.2d 743 (N.J. 2008)


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

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Wallace, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A “yes” or “no” answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Concurrence (Rivera-Soto, J.)

The concurrence section is for members only and includes a summary of the concurring judge or justice’s opinion.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Concurrence (Long, J.)

The concurrence section is for members only and includes a summary of the concurring judge or justice’s opinion.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 173,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,000 briefs, keyed to 188 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.