NJ & CT News

NEW JERSEY

Oral Palimony Agreement Is Valid

In what will likely be one of the last times a New Jersey court will uphold the validity of an oral palimony agreement, a man has been awarded half of the home he shared with his former same-sex partner. Fernandes v. Arantes, FD-09-1421-10. The case was filed prior to Jan. 18, 2010, the effective date of N.J.S.A. 25:1-5(h), a new New Jersey law that renders palimony agreements unenforceable if they do not meet the requirements of the statute of frauds (in writing, signed after both parties receive advice from counsel, etc). Hudson County Superior Court Judge Claude Coleman Jr. found that the defendant's characterization of the parties' relationship as one between roommates, not committed lovers, was a breach of good faith and fair dealing. After considering the facts surrounding the parties' relationship and the testimony of their mutual friends, Judge Coleman found the unwritten palimony agreement binding based on overwhelming evidence that the parties “lived together, and had made a commitment to each other to support each other, to share with each other, and most of all, as is implicit in every agreement, to treat each other fairly and avoid harm to the other.”

Underage Domestic Violence Plaintiff Entitled to
Appointed Counsel

In the case of J.L. v. G.D., FV-15-816-11, Ocean County Superior Court Judge Lawrence Jones recently held that a juvenile domestic violence plaintiff is entitled to the services of a court-appointed attorney when the adult defendant is represented by counsel. A 17-year-old female plaintiff commenced the action, seeking a restraining order against her 20-year-old former boyfriend, whom she had dated for two years. She alleged that he attacked her car on two occasions while she was inside of it, and that he had hit her in the face. On the hearing date, Judge Jones adjourned the case, sua sponte, in order to research whether the plaintiff was entitled to court-appointed counsel. “The importance of the issue is highlighted by the courtroom scene at the start of this case,” Jones wrote. “At one table is an adult defendant, standing next to an experienced and privately retained defense attorney of his choice. At the other table is a minor plaintiff, standing next to an empty chair.” The judge ultimately determined that, even though the New Jersey Prevention of Domestic Violence Act does not address a minor's right to counsel or adult representation, a 1994 amendment to the statute did explain that minors may bring domestic violence actions against adult dating partners. Next, Rule 4:26 provides that minor parties in civil actions should be appointed a guardian ad litem. The judge found the rule applies to civil domestic violence proceedings like the one at issue in J.L. v. G.D., but that, unlike in many other cases in which a minor is a party to a civil litigation, a parent is not necessarily the right choice. In fact, the state's Domestic Violence Procedures Manual specifically permits a minor to bring an action without parental notification in order to protect the minor's privacy and to encourage reporting of domestic abuse. Therefore, the appointment of an attorney was not only permitted by law but was also the better option, concluded Judge Jones.

CONNECTICUT

Once a Homestead, Always a Homestead

Over the bankruptcy trustee's objection, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut has held that the value of a home that a debtor claimed as exempt from the bankruptcy estate in accordance with Conn. Gen. Stat. ' 52-352b(t), remains exempt even though the debtor and her husband filed their bankruptcy petition pre-divorce and as part of the divorce settlement, she accepted cash in exchange for quitclaiming her interest in the home. In re Gasztold, 2011 Bankr. LEXIS 4109 (10/25/11). The court determined that the trustee's argument ' that the $62,950 the debtor ex-wife would receive pursuant to the divorce decree was property of the estate under 11 U.S.C. ' 541(a)(5)(B) ' overlooked the fact that “such sum is not a new asset acquired by [the ex-wife], but is the proceeds of her exempt interest in the Property which had already been included in the property of the estate and subsequently was withdrawn therefrom. Property exempted from the estate does not subsequently reenter the estate as a result of having changed form, notwithstanding that the form to which it was converted might not be entitled to an exemption under state law.”

NEW JERSEY

Oral Palimony Agreement Is Valid

In what will likely be one of the last times a New Jersey court will uphold the validity of an oral palimony agreement, a man has been awarded half of the home he shared with his former same-sex partner. Fernandes v. Arantes, FD-09-1421-10. The case was filed prior to Jan. 18, 2010, the effective date of N.J.S.A. 25:1-5(h), a new New Jersey law that renders palimony agreements unenforceable if they do not meet the requirements of the statute of frauds (in writing, signed after both parties receive advice from counsel, etc). Hudson County Superior Court Judge Claude Coleman Jr. found that the defendant's characterization of the parties' relationship as one between roommates, not committed lovers, was a breach of good faith and fair dealing. After considering the facts surrounding the parties' relationship and the testimony of their mutual friends, Judge Coleman found the unwritten palimony agreement binding based on overwhelming evidence that the parties “lived together, and had made a commitment to each other to support each other, to share with each other, and most of all, as is implicit in every agreement, to treat each other fairly and avoid harm to the other.”

Underage Domestic Violence Plaintiff Entitled to
Appointed Counsel

In the case of J.L. v. G.D., FV-15-816-11, Ocean County Superior Court Judge Lawrence Jones recently held that a juvenile domestic violence plaintiff is entitled to the services of a court-appointed attorney when the adult defendant is represented by counsel. A 17-year-old female plaintiff commenced the action, seeking a restraining order against her 20-year-old former boyfriend, whom she had dated for two years. She alleged that he attacked her car on two occasions while she was inside of it, and that he had hit her in the face. On the hearing date, Judge Jones adjourned the case, sua sponte, in order to research whether the plaintiff was entitled to court-appointed counsel. “The importance of the issue is highlighted by the courtroom scene at the start of this case,” Jones wrote. “At one table is an adult defendant, standing next to an experienced and privately retained defense attorney of his choice. At the other table is a minor plaintiff, standing next to an empty chair.” The judge ultimately determined that, even though the New Jersey Prevention of Domestic Violence Act does not address a minor's right to counsel or adult representation, a 1994 amendment to the statute did explain that minors may bring domestic violence actions against adult dating partners. Next, Rule 4:26 provides that minor parties in civil actions should be appointed a guardian ad litem. The judge found the rule applies to civil domestic violence proceedings like the one at issue in J.L. v. G.D., but that, unlike in many other cases in which a minor is a party to a civil litigation, a parent is not necessarily the right choice. In fact, the state's Domestic Violence Procedures Manual specifically permits a minor to bring an action without parental notification in order to protect the minor's privacy and to encourage reporting of domestic abuse. Therefore, the appointment of an attorney was not only permitted by law but was also the better option, concluded Judge Jones.

CONNECTICUT

Once a Homestead, Always a Homestead

Over the bankruptcy trustee's objection, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut has held that the value of a home that a debtor claimed as exempt from the bankruptcy estate in accordance with Conn. Gen. Stat. ' 52-352b(t), remains exempt even though the debtor and her husband filed their bankruptcy petition pre-divorce and as part of the divorce settlement, she accepted cash in exchange for quitclaiming her interest in the home. In re Gasztold, 2011 Bankr. LEXIS 4109 (10/25/11). The court determined that the trustee's argument ' that the $62,950 the debtor ex-wife would receive pursuant to the divorce decree was property of the estate under 11 U.S.C. ' 541(a)(5)(B) ' overlooked the fact that “such sum is not a new asset acquired by [the ex-wife], but is the proceeds of her exempt interest in the Property which had already been included in the property of the estate and subsequently was withdrawn therefrom. Property exempted from the estate does not subsequently reenter the estate as a result of having changed form, notwithstanding that the form to which it was converted might not be entitled to an exemption under state law.”