Bill

Bill > A1986


NJ A1986

NJ A1986
Allows written palimony agreements to be entered into without advice of counsel.


summary

Introduced
01/13/2026
In Committee
01/13/2026
Crossed Over
Passed
Dead

Introduced Session

2026-2027 Regular Session

Bill Summary

This bill would allow written palimony agreements to be entered into without advice of counsel. Pursuant to P.L.2009, c.311, all palimony agreements must be in writing and made with the advice of counsel for both parties. The statute, set out in subsection h. of N.J.S.A.25:1-5, defines palimony as "a promise by one party to a non-marital personal relationship to provide support or other consideration for the other party, either during the course of such relationship or after its termination." In Moynihan v. Lynch, 250 N.J. 60 (2022) the New Jersey Supreme Court held that the provision concerning the advice of counsel was unconstitutional. The court found that the provision contravenes the substantive due process guarantee of the New Jersey Constitution, as it interferes with an individual's right of autonomy, singles out written palimony agreements from other agreements, and unduly burdens those who cannot afford counsel. This bill would codify the court's decision in Moynihan. The bill embodies a recommendation by the New Jersey Law Revision Commission, "Final Report Regarding New Jersey Statute of Frauds - Mandatory Attorney Review Provision in N.J.S.25:1-5(h)," issued July 20, 2023.

AI Summary

This bill amends a New Jersey law that requires certain promises or agreements to be in writing to be legally enforceable, specifically addressing "palimony agreements," which are defined as a promise by one party in a non-marital relationship to provide support to the other party. Previously, such written palimony agreements were only considered binding if both parties had the independent advice of their own legal counsel, a requirement established by a 2009 law. However, this bill removes that mandatory attorney review requirement for written palimony agreements, aligning with a recent New Jersey Supreme Court decision that found the requirement unconstitutional because it unfairly burdened individuals who couldn't afford lawyers and infringed on personal autonomy. The bill essentially codifies this court ruling, allowing written palimony agreements to be valid without the necessity of each party having consulted with their own lawyer.

Committee Categories

Justice

Sponsors (1)

Last Action

Introduced, Referred to Assembly Judiciary Committee (on 01/13/2026)

bill text


bill summary

Loading...

bill summary

Loading...

bill summary

Loading...