Sanchez then filed a claim seeking a portion of the lottery winnings. Last week, Superior Court Judge Margaret Mary McVeigh denied Sanchez’s request to freeze the lottery winnings. McVeigh referenced the legislation in New Jersey, noting that “[our legislation] specifically said, ‘For these types of arrangements, relationships, to be upheld there needs to be a writing. You cannot go forward with these types of relationships without something in writing.’”
The Judge’s comments referenced the legal concept of palimony which is essentially an award of support, similar to alimony, given to a dependent party where the couple was in a long term relationship but never married. On January 15, 2010, legislation was signed in New Jersey which prohibited the enforcement of palimony agreements that were not reduced to writing kids air jordan. Based upon this statute, non-married couples that reside together for several years, like husband and wife, during which time one party financially supports the other, have no duty to continue the support after the relationship dissolves unless the promise to support is in the form of a written document which can then be enforced by a Court.
Despite the statute, there have been recent trial court decisions which appear to allow palimony-like claims survive despite the lack of a written agreement. Thus, it is questionable whether a claim for support can survive based solely upon a long-term marriage-like relationship. It appears unlikely, however, that a palimony claim will be the key to Ms. Sanchez’s success in the lottery case especially in light of the Judge’s statement about the necessity of a writing.
The equitable claim of unjust enrichment has also been asserted to compel payment between unmarried parties after the relationship ends. The Restatement Third of Restitution and Unjust Enrichment § 28 (2011), states: “If two persons have formerly lived together in a relationship resembling marriage, and if one of them owns a specific asset to which the other has made substantial, uncompensated contributions in the form of property or services, the person making such contributions has a claim in restitution against the owner as necessary to prevent unjust enrichment upon the dissolution of the relationship.”
A New Jersey Chancery Division Court denied an unjust enrichment claim for homemaking services during a relationship, but recognized that a claim could be made for unjust enrichment of the boyfriend’s business for services performed by the girlfriend. (Carney v. Hansell, 363 N.J. Super. 111, 127 (Ch. Div. 2003 ). In this case, the parties had a towing business that started around the time they met. The girlfriend handled all the paperwork, phone calls, and pricing, but was never named on any of the business accounts or dealings retro air jordan shoes. The Court found that although she was not a partner in the business, she did have a claim for unjust enrichment in regard to the business. The Court compensated her by calculating the minimum wage she would have earned at the time, minus any checks that she did receive (between $60 and $100 per week).
Unfortunately, the lottery case does not appear to be a situation where the claim of unjust enrichment will prevail. To be successful, Ms. Sanchez would have to show that she made substantial, uncompensated contributions which resulted in Mr. Quezada’s successful quest to win the lottery. If hard work alone resulted in lottery success, we would all be millionaires!