Without a Will, an unmarried person has no rights in the Estate of another person. Not so for a married person. Even with no Will in place (absent a valid prenuptial agreement), a Widow or Widower will take 1/3 of the Decedent's testamentary estate.
If a marriage ends by divorce, a Spouse will receive an equitable share of the marital estate, and has the potential for alimony. However, without the benefit of marriage, Courts will not enforce "equitable distribution" on a breakup, even if there is a writing and payments made based on the writing. Public policy in New York State is to encourage marriage, as was made clear in a recent case, which Mrs. Lo likes to call "Promises, Promises."
The case is out of Rockland County, where Acting Supreme Court Justice Alfieri ruled in favor of the Plaintiff (we'll call him BF), who had promised to pay his "special friend" (GF) $500,000.00 after "relationship" ended.
The Court ruled that the writing in question was not a valid contract, and also ordered the GF to pay the BF's attorney's fees. In the ultimate slap in the face, the Court ordered the GF's lawyer to pay $2,500.00 in Sanctions for bringing on a frivolous claim.
The BF had written a letter to GF, apologizing for hurting her and promising to pay her $500,000.00 in the future, according to the Decision, Wu v. Xu, 031636/2013. BF actually made two payments totaling $47,020.00 to GF. Then he went to see a lawyer and things changed.
He brought a lawsuit to declare the letter to be null and void, and not enforceable since they were never married. GF then hired a lawyer to enforce the writing.
The Court cited a 1906 New York Court of Appeals decision: Platt v. Elias, which stated:
"Generally, contracts tending to impair familial relationships are found to be against public policy,"
Justice Alfieri's 2013 decision stated: "Although the August 2012 letter is not an express agreement to marry or to encourage a divorce, it does involve the institution of marriage and the well-being of the familiar relationship of Plaintiff and his wife to the extent that this Court finds is against public policy ... as such," Alfieri added, "the Court finds that the letter is not a valid, enforceable contract." This is especially true where the BF was already married.
Thus, written in between the lines of the deicison is the fact that the Court is protecting the Wife of the BF and preserving the marital estate. BF is married with a grown child and GF is single. GF said BF had promised that he would divorce his wife, leave his family and marry her.
BF was not seeking to get back the $47K he had already paid GF, just to get out of having to pay another $450K.
Incidentally, that 1906 case was the source of a great scandal back in the day. In that case, BF was a millionaire glass manufacturer. He sued to have his GF, Hannah Elias, repay him the $685,385.00 he said he spent on her between 1896 and 1904. BF, age 86 in 1906, claimed Elias had threatened extortion or blackmail by revealing their long-time affair unless he continued to maintain her affluent lifestyle. Did I mention BF was married and Hannah was African American? Hence, the scandal in 1906.
Thus, the title of the blog, "Promises, Promises" could alternately be "Take the Money and Run." In any event, no marriage, no divorce protection.
Juliana LoBiondo
www.LoBiondoLaw.com
No comments:
Post a Comment