## Facts

- Mary Theresa Sopko and Arthur J. Roccamonte, Sr. began a relationship in the 1950s while each was married to someone else.
- Sopko temporarily left the relationship and moved to California, intending to end it because Roccamonte would not divorce his wife.
- Roccamonte urged Sopko to return to New Jersey, promising he would divorce his wife and that he would provide for Sopko financially for the rest of her life.
- Sopko returned, divorced her husband, and by 1970 lived with Roccamonte in an apartment he leased; in 1973 he purchased the unit and titled it in Sopko’s name.
- Sopko, Roccamonte, and Sopko’s daughter lived together for decades and held themselves out as living “as husband and wife,” although Roccamonte remained legally married and continued to support his wife and children.
- Roccamonte provided Sopko substantial support consistent with his wealth, including a weekly cash allowance, gifts, vacations, and financial assistance for Sopko’s daughter.
- Sopko worked until 1990 and earned modest income, while maintaining a long-term relationship in which she acted as a loyal, devoted partner.
- As Sopko grew older, she expressed concern about financial security; she testified that Roccamonte repeatedly reassured her she would be provided for during her life.
- Roccamonte died intestate in 1995; no probate or non-probate arrangements provided for Sopko.
- Sopko sued the estate seeking enforcement of an alleged oral lifetime-support agreement; after dismissal at trial on remand, the Appellate Division reversed and ordered judgment for Sopko, and the estate appealed as of right due to a dissent.

## Issues

1. Whether the decedent made an enforceable oral promise to support the plaintiff for her lifetime.
2. Whether an oral lifetime-support promise, supported by a marital-type relationship, is enforceable against the promisor’s estate after death.
3. Whether the alleged consideration was impermissibly meretricious (based solely on sexual services), defeating enforcement.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of New Jersey affirmed judgment for Sopko and remanded for calculation of a lump-sum award.
- The Court held the record supported finding an enforceable oral promise of lifetime support.
- The Court held Sopko provided adequate, non-meretricious consideration through a long-term marital-type relationship and related commitments; complete economic dependency was not required.
- The Court held the contractual duty to provide lifetime support was not discharged by death and was enforceable against the estate as successor in interest.
- The Court directed entry of judgment on the contract claim with damages to be calculated based on the existing record.

## Legal Principles

- A palimony-type support agreement may be oral and may be express or implied; its existence and terms may be proven by words, conduct, and surrounding circumstances.
- A broadly stated promise of lifetime support, made in exchange for a marital-type relationship and related life-structuring commitments, can form an enforceable contract.
- Consideration is sufficient if it is bargained-for detriment; it need not be equal to the promisor’s benefit, and the promisee need not be fully financially dependent.
- A relationship providing companionship, homemaking, and other spousal-like contributions is not automatically treated as meretricious consideration.
- A contractual promise to support a partner for life survives the promisor’s death and may be enforced against the estate through a lump-sum award reflecting the present value of promised support.

## Conclusion

The court enforced an oral lifetime-support promise arising from a long-term marital-type relationship and held that the obligation survived the promisor’s death, permitting recovery of contract damages from the estate through a lump-sum award.


In re Estate of Roccamonte, 174 N.J. 381, 808 A.2d 838 (2002)