Beverly Maeker v. William Ross (072185)
99 A.3d 795
N.J.2014Background
- Beverly Maeker and William Ross lived in a marital-type cohabiting relationship from 1999–2011; Ross allegedly promised lifetime financial support and Maeker quit her career in reliance.
- Ross executed a power of attorney and a will in December 2010 naming Maeker executor and providing for her support; in July 2011 he ended the relationship and stopped support.
- Maeker sued in family court to enforce an oral palimony agreement and asserted related equitable claims (partial performance, unjust enrichment, estoppel, etc.).
- Ross moved to dismiss, arguing the 2010 Amendment to the Statute of Frauds (N.J.S.A. 25:1-5(h)) bars enforcement of oral palimony agreements even if formed before the Amendment.
- The family court denied dismissal, treating the Amendment as prospective; the Appellate Division reversed, holding the Amendment applied regardless of when the agreement was made and dismissing Maeker’s complaint.
- The New Jersey Supreme Court granted certification and reversed the Appellate Division, reinstating Maeker’s complaint (but rejecting the will alone as proof of a palimony contract).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 2010 Statute of Frauds amendment applies retroactively to oral palimony agreements formed before its enactment | Maeker: Amendment should be applied prospectively; pre-2010 oral palimony agreements remain enforceable | Ross: Amendment requires all palimony agreements (whenever formed) be written with independent counsel; thus Maeker’s oral claim fails | Held: Amendment not retroactive; oral palimony agreements made before Jan. 18, 2010 remain enforceable |
| Appropriate date for retroactivity analysis: date contract formed vs. date cause of action accrued | Maeker: Retroactivity should be measured from date the oral contract was formed | Ross: Cause of action accrued when the promise was breached (post-Amendment), so Amendment applies | Held: Use date contract was formed for retroactivity; Appellate Division erred by focusing on accrual date |
| Whether Ross’s will constitutes a written palimony agreement under the Statute of Frauds | Maeker: Will and power of attorney evidence a written promise of lifetime support | Ross: A will is revocable and cannot, standing alone, create an enforceable palimony contract | Held: Will alone cannot serve as a written palimony agreement |
| Whether equitable remedies (partial performance, estoppel) survive given the Amendment | Maeker: Equitable doctrines should prevent injustice and remain available for pre-Amendment agreements | Ross: Equitable claims merely repackaged palimony claim; partial performance would nullify the Statute of Frauds | Held: Court did not decide availability of equitable remedies; remanded for further proceedings on underlying claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Kozlowski v. Kozlowski, 80 N.J. 378 (1979) (recognized enforceability of oral palimony agreements)
- In re Estate of Roccamonte, 174 N.J. 381 (2002) (discusses oral palimony agreements and proof by acts and conduct)
- Gibbons v. Gibbons, 86 N.J. 515 (1981) (presumption favoring prospective application of substantive statutes)
- Von Hoffman v. City of Quincy, 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 535 (1867) (retroactive application of a Statute of Frauds-like rule may impair contracts)
- Ford v. Potts, 6 N.J.L. 388 (1797) (early New Jersey precedent applying Statute of Frauds prospectively)