In re Estate of Roccamonte

Supreme Court of New Jersey · 2002 · Property

PropertyPalimonyContractsEstatespalimonyoral contractimplied contractlifetime support

Facts

Mary Sopko and Arthur Roccamonte had a long-term affair and then lived together as husband and wife for about twenty-five years, after he induced her to return from California with promises that he would provide for her financially for the rest of her life. During the relationship, he supported her lavishly relative to her modest earnings, and she devoted herself to the relationship as a loyal and devoted wife. When she expressed concern about her financial future if she survived him, he repeatedly assured her that he would see that she was provided for during her life, including in the presence of other witnesses. Roccamonte died intestate without making adequate provision for her, and she sued his estate for palimony.

Issue

Whether the evidence established an enforceable palimony contract promising plaintiff support for life, and if so, whether that promise survived the promisor's death and was enforceable against his estate. The case also raised whether plaintiff's employment or lack of traditional domestic services defeated consideration for the promise.

Rule

A palimony agreement may be oral and may be express or implied from the parties' words, acts, conduct, and surrounding circumstances. A general promise of support for life, made in exchange for the promisee's entry into and conduct within a marital-type relationship, is supported by sufficient consideration even if the promisee is not totally financially dependent and even if the consideration is not framed as domestic services. When such a promise is broken, the promisee is entitled to a lump-sum award equal to the present value of reasonable future support measured by the promisee's life expectancy, and the obligation is enforceable against the promisor's estate because it is not discharged by the promisor's death.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Newark, Elena Morris lived with Victor Salerno for eighteen years in a relationship they described to friends as "basically married." Victor repeatedly told Elena that she would be "provided for the rest of her life," but he never put anything in writing and died intestate without arranging ongoing support for her.

If Elena sues Victor's estate for lifetime support, which is the strongest argument for enforcing the promise?

Explanation. The governing rule is that palimony rights arise from contract, not from cohabitation alone, and the contract may be oral. A general oral promise of support for life, made in exchange for entry into and conduct within a marital-type relationship, is enforceable. The claim does not depend on proving a testamentary disposition, and a writing is not required.