New Jersey palimony is narrow now. The timeline and the writing matter.

The Kozlowski1 framework.

Under Kozlowski v. Kozlowski1, and subsequent cases including Crowe v. De Gioia2, NJ recognized palimony claims where:

• A promise (express, written, oral, or implied from conduct) to provide support.
• Marital-like consideration: cohabitation, household services, financial contributions, foregone career opportunities.
• Detrimental reliance by the promisee.

Long-term cohabitation arrangements could produce enforceable palimony judgments. The doctrine was wider than it is now; many couples relied on informal arrangements without formal documentation.

The 2010 amendment: N.J.S.A. 25:1-5(h)1.

The New Jersey Legislature amended the Statute of Frauds under N.J.S.A. 25:1-5(h)1 to require a promise by one party to a non-marital personal relationship to provide support or other consideration to be:

1. In writing.
2. Signed by the party to be charged.
3. Made with independent advice of counsel for both parties, a requirement the New Jersey Supreme Court later held unconstitutional in Moynihan v. Lynch, 250 N.J. 60 (2022)2.

In Moynihan v. Lynch2, the Court struck the independent-advice-of-counsel condition as a violation of substantive due process under the New Jersey Constitution, holding that enforceability cannot be conditioned on attorney review. The writing and signature requirements survive. Oral promises between cohabitants made after the amendment therefore still face a Statute of Frauds problem if they are not reduced to a signed writing, which is why current planning should be documented before reliance grows around an informal promise.

Maeker v. Ross1 and timing.

The New Jersey Supreme Court in Maeker v. Ross1 addressed prospective application of the amendment. In practice, the litigation question often starts with when the alleged agreement was made, whether it was later modified, what proof exists, and whether separate equitable or property claims survive even if palimony does not.

Cohabitation agreements: the modern path.

Cohabitation agreements are the cleaner planning path for unmarried partners who want financial expectations in writing. Typical components:

• Treatment of property acquired during cohabitation.
• Treatment of the residence: title, mortgage contribution, separation/death disposition.
• Support upon separation: none, time-limited, or ongoing.
• Treatment of business interests held during cohabitation.
• Estate-planning coordination: wills, beneficiary designations, healthcare proxies.
• Children of the relationship (within statutory limits; child support and custody remain under N.J.S.A. 9:17-381 and N.J.S.A. 9:2-42).

To satisfy N.J.S.A. 25:1-5(h)3, any support promise must be in writing and signed by the party to be charged. Independent counsel is no longer a condition of enforceability after Moynihan v. Lynch (2022), but separate counsel for each party remains sound practice. We draft cohabitation agreements as part of our relationship agreements practice.

Alternative theories: when palimony doesn't apply.

Where palimony doctrine does not answer the problem, alternative theories may:

• Contract claims: discrete agreements about specific property, contributions, or financial matters may be enforceable as ordinary contracts.
• Unjust enrichment: restitution where one party has unjustly retained benefit at the other's expense.
• Constructive trust: where one party holds property that equity dictates should belong to the other; common where one cohabitant funded acquisition or improvement of property in the other's name.
• Resulting trust: where property was purchased with one party's funds but titled to the other.
• Joint-property claims: partition or joint-property division for jointly titled property.
• Quantum meruit: restitution for services provided with expectation of compensation.

Cohabitation and alimony: N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23(n)1.

Cohabitation by an alimony recipient can produce termination or modification of alimony under N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23(n)1. Factors under the 2014 statutory framework and Konzelman v. Konzelman2 include:

• Intertwined finances.
• Sharing or joint responsibility for living expenses.
• Recognition of the relationship in the couple's social and family circle.
• Living together; frequency of contact; duration of relationship.
• Sharing household chores.
• Whether the cohabitant has contributed to support obligations of the recipient.
• All other relevant evidence.

Cascading consequences can affect new partners. Moving in with an alimony recipient may trigger a termination or modification motion and can reorganize household finances. Contact counsel before cohabitation if existing alimony is part of the household economics.

Same-sex couples and palimony.

Palimony and cohabitation-agreement analysis applies regardless of gender. Counsel reviews the promise, timing, writing and signature, property record, and any later marriage or civil-union status. See our LGBTQ+ family law page for related family-law context.

Next step

If you are relying on an informal promise, separating after years of cohabitation, or planning to buy property with an unmarried partner, request a consultation before documents are signed or assets are moved. Bring any written agreement, deed, mortgage statement, bank records showing contributions, messages about support, and estate-planning documents so counsel can separate palimony from the other claims that may matter.