## Facts

- Elsa Naimo worked for Mario Bruno and later began an intimate relationship with him while he remained married.
- Bruno repeatedly expressed a desire to have a child and allegedly promised Naimo that if she bore his child he would (1) support the child and (2) leave money for the child at Bruno’s death.
- Naimo relied on those promises, became pregnant, and gave birth to Mario Bruno, Jr.; she testified she had sexual relations with no other men during the relevant period.
- Bruno did not divorce his wife or marry Naimo, and his will contained no provision for Naimo or the child.
- Naimo, individually and as guardian ad litem for the child, sued the executors of Bruno’s estate seeking specific performance of the alleged oral contract to make a testamentary provision for the child.
- The estate argued the agreement was illegal, immoral, and against public policy because it arose from an adulterous relationship.

## Issues

1. Whether an oral agreement by a married man to support and leave a testamentary provision for a child conceived through an adulterous relationship is void as illegal, immoral, or contrary to public policy.
2. Whether, if not void, an oral contract to make a testamentary provision was sufficiently proven and definite to warrant equitable enforcement against the decedent’s estate.

## Decision

- The court held the agreement was not void as against public policy merely because the child was conceived in an adulterous relationship.
- The court distinguished between unenforceable bargains grounded in or rewarding illicit sexual relations and enforceable promises directed to the child’s support and welfare.
- The court found the oral agreement to support the child and provide for him at Bruno’s death was adequately established on the evidence presented.
- The court granted equitable relief enforcing the decedent’s obligation in favor of the child against the estate.

## Legal Principles

- Contracts resting on consideration of illicit sexual relations, or aimed at encouraging continuation of such relations, are unenforceable as contrary to public policy.
- A promise to support and provide financially for a child, including by a testamentary provision, is not rendered unenforceable solely because the child was conceived out of wedlock or through an adulterous relationship.
- Public policy favors protecting children’s welfare and enforcing obligations that prevent children from bearing the consequences of adults’ misconduct.
- A contract to make a will or provide a testamentary benefit may be specifically enforced in equity against an estate when its existence and essential terms are clearly proven.

## Conclusion

The Chancery Division enforced an oral agreement requiring a decedent to provide support and a testamentary benefit for his child, holding that a child-focused support promise is enforceable in equity and not void on public-policy grounds merely because the child was conceived through adultery.


Naimo v. La Fianza, 369 A.2d 987 (N.J. Super. Ct. Ch. Div. 1976)