Moynihan v. Lynch

• Decision Date: 08 March 2022
• Docket Number: 085157,A-64-20
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court
• Parties: Kathleen M. Moynihan, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Edward J. Lynch, Defendant-Respondent.

Kathleen M. Moynihan, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Edward J. Lynch, Defendant-Respondent.

Nos. A-64-20, 085157

Supreme Court of New Jersey

March 8, 2022

Argued November 29, 2021

On certification to the Superior Court, Appellate Division.

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, 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, Brian G. Paul, and Brian M. Schwartz, 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, Bonnie C. Frost, Christine C. Fitzgerald, and Dina Mikulka, on the brief).

ALBIN, J., writing for a unanimous Court.

Plaintiff Kathleen Moynihan and defendant 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, without the assistance of counsel, that finalized the financial obligations each owed to the other. In this appeal, the Court considers the validity of that palimony agreement.

The parties met in 1997 and developed a romantic relationship. In the beginning, Lynch occasionally slept at Moynihan's home. In 2000, Moynihan and her children moved to a home in Bordentown. Moynihan made the down payment on the home, which Lynch purchased with a mortgage and titled in his name. The parties shared the financial responsibilities of the home. Over time, Lynch moved into the home and became more active in the life of the Moynihan family. The parties discussed marriage but never wed.

In 2007, Lynch placed the title of the home into a trust and named Moynihan as the beneficiary upon his death. In 2013, Lynch converted his ownership of the home into a joint tenancy with rights of survivorship, naming himself and Moynihan on the deed.

Sometime between 2012 and 2014, the parties entered into a handwritten agreement, drafted by Lynch, which 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, within two years of vacating the home, pay the real estate taxes on the property for two years. In 2015, the parties parted ways, and Lynch refused to abide by their written agreement.

Moynihan filed a complaint seeking enforcement of the written agreement and 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." She challenged N.J.S.A. 25:1-5(h) on constitutional grounds and urged enforcement as a typical contract; alternatively, she sought enforcement of the agreement on equitable grounds. Lynch denied the existence of an oral palimony agreement and asserted that the written agreement was unenforceable because the parties did not receive the independent advice of counsel before entering it.

At trial, Moynihan testified that their relationship "was like a marriage," and that Lynch told her there was "no reason" to consult an attorney about their agreement and notarizing the agreement "makes it legal." Lynch diminished their relationship and gave conflicting testimony about whether he intended to be bound by the agreement.

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 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. The court also found that the couple did not enter an enforceable oral palimony agreement. The Appellate Division reversed, but it upheld the finding that the parties did not reach an oral palimony agreement. The Court granted certification. 246 N.J. 324 (2021).

HELD: The palimony agreement, as written and signed, without the attorney review requirement, is enforceable. That portion of N.J.S.A. 25:1-5(h), which imposes an attorney-review requirement to enforce a palimony agreement, contravenes Article I, Paragraph 1 of the New Jersey Constitution. The parties did not enter an oral palimony agreement.

1. The Statute of Frauds generally requires that certain agreements be signed by the party against whom enforcement is sought. N.J.S.A. 25:1-5. In 2010, the Legislature amended the Statute to include palimony agreements. N.J.S.A. 25:1-5(h). Prior to the amendment, New Jersey's common law recognized that an unwed couple could enter into a palimony agreement and courts enforced oral palimony agreements involving "marital-type relationships" where one party induced the other to enter or remain in the relationship by a promise of support. The feature that distinguishes N.J.S.A. 25:1-5(h) from all other provisions of the Statute of Frauds is the requirement that each party to the palimony agreement secure the "independent advice of counsel." No other law in this state conditions enforceability of an agreement between private parties on attorney review. Furthermore, none of the jurisdictions that enforce palimony agreements mandate that the parties consult with attorneys before entering into such agreements. (pp. 22-25)

2. N.J.S.A. 25:1-5(h)'s attorney-review requirement does not violate the Contract Clauses of the United States and New Jersey Constitutions, which bar the state legislature from passing any law impairing the obligation of contracts. U.S. Const. art. I, § 10, cl. 1; N.J. Const. art. IV, § 7, ¶ 3. The essential aim of the Federal and State Contract Clauses is to restrain a state legislature from passing laws that retrospectively impair preexisting contracts. That concern is not present here; Moynihan and Lynch signed their written agreement well after the effective date of N.J.S.A. 25:1-5(h). (pp. 26-28) 3. The question is whether, under the substantive due process guarantee of Article I, Paragraph 1 of the State Constitution, the State generally can impose on an individual the burden of retaining counsel to review a private contract. The right to "personal liberty" guaranteed in Article I, Paragraph 1 protects against the government arbitrarily interfering with the right to individual "autonomy." A.A. v. Att'y Gen., 384 N.J.Super. 67, 109 (App. Div. 2006) (quoting Doe v. Poritz, 142 N.J. 1, 78 (1995)), aff'd 189 N.J. 128 (2007). The right of individuals to represent themselves in civil courts -- and presumably to craft their own private contracts -- predates the adoption of the Federal and State Constitutions. The original Statute of Frauds did not require a person to consult with an attorney before entering into a contract. Among the universe of private contracts, the Legislature mandates attorney review only for palimony agreements. (pp. 28-34)

4. In determining whether parties have a substantive due process liberty interest under Article I, Paragraph 1, the Court applies a balancing test weighing three factors: "the nature of the right at stake, the extent to which the challenged statutory scheme restricts that right, and the public need for the statutory restriction." Lewis v. Harris, 188 N.J. 415, 443 (2006). Here, it is the right of personal autonomy -- the right to make decisions without the compelled participation of an attorney. The attorney-review requirement of N.J.S.A. 25:1-5(h) directly infringes on that right. An attorney's services may impose a cost that the parties do not want to bear or cannot afford. Attorney review almost certainly will result in fewer palimony agreements. The legislative history of N.J.S.A. 25:1-5(h) does not shed light on why only palimony agreements require attorney review. (pp. 34-37)

5. The imposition of an attorney-review requirement is an arbitrary government restriction that contravenes Moynihan's substantive due process rights. The Court strikes down the attorney-review requirement in N.J.S.A. 25:1-5(h). Palimony agreements must still be in writing and signed, if not by both parties, at least by the party against whom the agreement is to be enforced -- just like all agreements enumerated in the Statute of Frauds. The Court enforces the palimony agreement as written in this case. (pp. 37-38)

6. Sufficient credible evidence in the record supports the trial court's determination that Lynch did not make an explicit or implied oral promise to support Moynihan for life. Therefore, the parties did not have an oral palimony agreement before 2010. Because the written palimony agreement is enforceable, the Court does not address any of the equitable remedies pressed by Moynihan for enforcement of that agreement. (pp. 38-40)

REVERSED in part; AFFIRMED in part. REMANDED to the trial court.

CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER and JUSTICES PATTERSON, SOLOMON, and PIERRE-LOUIS join in JUSTICE ALBIN's opinion.

ALBIN JUSTICE

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...