Moynihan v. Lynch
| Citation | 269 A.3d 435,250 N.J. 60 |
| Decision Date | 08 March 2022 |
| Docket Number | A-64 September Term 2020,085157 |
| Parties | Kathleen M. MOYNIHAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Edward J. LYNCH, Defendant-Respondent. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey) |
Angelo Sarno argued the cause for appellant (Snyder Sarno D'Aneillo Maceri & Da Costa, attorneys; Angelo Sarno, of counsel and on the briefs, and Scott D. Danaher, Roseland, on the briefs).
Allison M. Roberts argued the cause for respondent (AMR Law, attorneys; Allison M. Roberts, of counsel and on the briefs).
Robin C. Bogan argued the cause for amicus curiae New Jersey State Bar Association (New Jersey State Bar Association, attorneys; Domenick Carmagnola, President, of counsel, and Robin C. Bogan, Morristown, Brian G. Paul, Lawrenceville, and Brian M. Schwartz, Livingston, on the brief).
Jeralyn L. Lawrence argued the cause for amicus curiae The New Jersey Chapter of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers (Lawrence Law, attorneys; Jeralyn L. Lawrence, Watchung, Bonnie C. Frost, Denville, Christine C. Fitzgerald, Cranford, and Dina Mikulka, on the brief).
Kathleen Moynihan and Edward Lynch were involved in a long-term "marital-style relationship." Anticipating the potential dissolution of that relationship, they signed and notarized a written agreement that finalized the financial obligations each owed to the other. That palimony agreement provided that, within five years of vacating their jointly owned home, Lynch would pay off the mortgage, deed it over to Moynihan, pay her $100,000, and pay the real estate taxes on the property for two years after his departure.
The primary issue in this case is the validity of that written palimony agreement. After the relationship ended, Lynch contended that the agreement was unenforceable because neither he nor Moynihan had counsel review the agreement before signing it, as required by N.J.S.A. 25:1-5(h). That statute provides that a written promise in a palimony agreement is not "binding unless it was made with the independent advice of counsel for both parties." N.J.S.A. 25:1-5(h). Moynihan claims, among other things, that the provision compelling the parties to secure the assistance of counsel to enter into a written palimony agreement violates the constitutional prohibition on impairing contracts.
The trial court found that N.J.S.A. 25:1-5(h) ’s attorney-review requirement did not contravene Moynihan's constitutional rights. The court, however, determined that the written agreement was not a palimony agreement but more akin to an "orderly removal" in a landlord/tenant matter and enforced the agreement according to its terms. The court also found that the couple did not enter an enforceable oral palimony agreement.
The Appellate Division reversed. It concluded that the Lynch/Moynihan agreement was clearly a palimony agreement, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 25:1-5(h), and therefore unenforceable because the parties did not receive the "independent advice of counsel" before signing the agreement. The Appellate Division further determined that N.J.S.A. 25:1-5(h) ’s attorney-review requirement did not violate the federal or state constitutional provision prohibiting the impairment of contracts. It upheld the trial court's finding that the parties did not reach an oral palimony agreement.
We agree with the Appellate Division that Lynch and Moynihan signed a written palimony agreement. We also find that N.J.S.A. 25:1-5(h) did not retrospectively alter a preexisting contract and therefore did not constitute legislation impairing a contract. We hold, however, that N.J.S.A. 25:1-5(h) ’s attorney-review requirement contravenes the substantive due process guarantee of Article I, Paragraph 1 of the New Jersey Constitution.
Article I, Paragraph 1 limits the power of the State to control individual decision-making in certain fundamental areas concerning a person's life and livelihood. N.J.S.A. 25:1-5(h) compels individuals to retain attorneys before they can enter a palimony agreement -- a contract no more complicated than other family law or commercial contracts that do not require attorney review. N.J.S.A. 25:1-5(h) ’s attorney-review requirement interferes with an individual's right of autonomy, singles out written palimony agreements from among all other agreements for differential treatment, and has no parallel in the legislative history of this state.
The State generally cannot compel a person to accept counsel in a criminal or civil case. Because individuals generally have a constitutional right to represent themselves in our criminal and civil courts, it follows that generally they can enter a contract no more complex than others without an attorney. The attorney-review requirement also unduly burdens those who cannot afford counsel -- those with little or no income -- denying them the opportunity to enter contracts available to their more affluent counterparts. No sound reason has been given for the public need to compel attorney review of palimony agreements to the exclusion of all other agreements. We therefore conclude that N.J.S.A. 25:1-5(h) ’s provision compelling parties to seek the advice of counsel -- and therefore retain counsel -- before signing a palimony agreement violates the substantive due process guarantee of our State Constitution.
Although we reverse the judgment of the Appellate Division enforcing the written agreement, we affirm its judgment that sufficient credible evidence in the record supports the trial court's finding that the parties did not enter an oral palimony agreement. We remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Kathleen Moynihan filed a complaint and an amended complaint in the Superior Court, Burlington County, seeking enforcement of a written palimony agreement, as well as an alleged oral palimony agreement that she claimed the parties had entered before the Legislature in 2010 amended N.J.S.A. 25:1-5 to include subparagraph (h). That amendment mandated that palimony agreements be reduced to writing and "made with the independent advice of counsel." N.J.S.A. 25:1-5(h). Additionally, Moynihan contended, her written agreement should be enforced as a typical contract, not as a palimony agreement. Alternatively, she urged that if the agreement constituted a written or oral palimony agreement, it should be enforced on a number of equitable grounds, such as partial performance of the oral and written agreements, equitable estoppel, fraud, and specific performance of an implied contract.
In response, Lynch denied the existence of an oral palimony agreement and stated that the written agreement was unenforceable because the parties did not receive the independent advice of counsel before entering it, as required by N.J.S.A. 25:1-5(h). He also counterclaimed for partition of the home that he and Moynihan owned, asserting that the parties should equally split the proceeds of the sale.
A six-day trial was conducted in the Chancery Division, Family Part. The court heard testimony from Moynihan, her two daughters, and Lynch. Although the parties’ testimony differed greatly on some points, we begin with those facts that are mostly undisputed.
Moynihan and Lynch first met in 1997 when Moynihan served as a flight attendant and Lynch worked as a pilot for U.S. Airways. In time, they developed a romantic relationship. At the beginning of their relationship, Moynihan was in the midst of divorce proceedings and lived in Mansfield with her three children. Lynch had a home in New Hampshire and an apartment in Philadelphia and split his time between the two. In the early part of their relationship, Lynch occasionally slept over at Moynihan's home.
In 2000, Moynihan and her estranged husband divorced. Because Moynihan's ex-husband stopped making mortgage payments on the family home, a foreclosure action followed. Moynihan then moved with her children to a home in Bordentown. Although Moynihan borrowed $8,000 from her father to make a down payment on the home, Lynch primarily financed the purchase through a mortgage, and the home was deeded in his name.
Lynch stayed with greater frequency at the Bordentown home and would regularly dine with Moynihan and her children. He also became more active in the life of the Moynihan family. He frequently attended Moynihan's children's after-school activities and spent a number of holidays with the family. By all appearances, Lynch and Moynihan had more than a dating relationship. During their relationship, they discussed marriage, though they never wed.
Moynihan and Lynch shared the financial responsibilities in maintaining the home: Moynihan initially paid the monthly mortgage and real estate taxes, along with other household expenses, while Lynch paid for the home's improvements. Over time, Lynch began to provide Moynihan with approximately $1,000 a month to pay the mortgage and other expenses. In 2007, Lynch placed the title of the home into a revocable trust and named Moynihan as the trust's beneficiary upon his death. Lynch also named Moynihan as the beneficiary of his life insurance policy, his 401(k) plan, and his bond account.
Sometime between 2012 and 2014, the parties entered into a prospective property settlement agreement in the event their relationship dissolved. The handwritten agreement drafted by Lynch provided:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Primmer v. Harrison
...reduced the judgment against plaintiff to $74,306.41.While these appeals were pending, the Supreme Court decided Moynihan v. Lynch, 250 N.J. 60, 91, 269 A.3d 435 (2022), which struck down as unconstitutional the portion of N.J.S.A. 25:1-5(h) requiring parties to a palimony agreement receive......
-
Roth v. Karpman
...regarding plaintiff's rental income was supported by plaintiff's own testimony, we have no basis to disturb it. See Moynihan v. Lynch, 250 N.J. 60, 90 (2022) (explaining that an appellate court is "bound to a finding that is supported by sufficient credible evidence in the record"). The jud......