Cohabitation is not an absolute requirement for a successful claim for palimony but is only one of a number of factors a judge should consider, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday.

A 6-1 majority, breaking with precedent set by nearly every other state court, said a plaintiff in a palimony case need only prove that there was a “marital-type relationship” rather than show that the couple lived together for some period.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]