## Facts

- Helen Mary Devaney worked as a receptionist for Francis A. L’Esperance, Jr., an ophthalmologist who remained married throughout their relationship.
- Devaney and L’Esperance had an intimate relationship for roughly twenty years but never cohabited; he continued living with his wife.
- Devaney alleged L’Esperance promised to divorce his wife, marry Devaney, have a child with her, and provide lifetime support.
- L’Esperance provided substantial financial assistance over time, including paying certain bills, funding her education, buying a car, and arranging for the condominium where she lived (later purchased by him).
- After Devaney learned she might have difficulty conceiving, L’Esperance decided he did not want another child; the relationship ended.
- Devaney began seeing another man, and L’Esperance sought to remove her from the condominium.
- Devaney later filed a palimony action claiming an enforceable promise of lifetime support.

## Issues

1. Whether cohabitation is an indispensable element of a New Jersey palimony cause of action.
2. Whether, on the facts, Devaney proved a marital-type relationship and a promise of lifetime support sufficient to establish palimony.

## Decision

- The court held that cohabitation is not an essential requirement for a palimony claim.
- The court reaffirmed that a plaintiff must prove a marital-type relationship and a promise of support (express or implied).
- The court affirmed dismissal of Devaney’s complaint because the evidence supported the trial court’s finding that the relationship was not marital-type.
- The court rejected the Appellate Division’s rule that lack of cohabitation, by itself, bars palimony.

## Legal Principles

- Palimony may be based on an express or implied promise of lifetime support between unmarried partners.
- A palimony claimant must prove a marital-type relationship; cohabitation is relevant evidence but not a required element.
- Trial courts must evaluate the overall character of the relationship using multiple indicia of a marital-type partnership; no single factor is determinative.
- Appellate review gives deference to supported trial-level factual findings about the nature of the parties’ relationship.

## Conclusion

Cohabitation is not a categorical prerequisite to palimony in New Jersey, but palimony still requires proof of a marital-type relationship and a support promise; applying that standard, the court upheld dismissal because the relationship was found to be dating rather than marriage-like.


Devaney v. L’Esperance, 197 N.J. 88, 961 A.2d 108 (N.J. 2008)