99 A.3d 795 (N.J. 2014)
In 1998, Beverly Maeker and William Ross began a romantic relationship while both lived in Brooklyn, New York.1 The following year, Maeker moved into Ross’s home while maintaining ownership of her condominium where her son from a former marriage continued to reside.2 From the time they began living together until their separation in 2011, Ross financially supported Maeker by paying for all of her living expenses, the mortgage and upkeep of her condominium, and her son’s college education.3 In return, Maeker performed all of the duties requested of her, including cooking, cleaning, companionship, homemaker duties, and caring for Ross when he was ill.4 The couple later moved to Bedminster, New Jersey, where they rented a house together and held themselves out to the world as a family unit.5
During their thirteen-year relationship, Ross repeatedly promised that he would financially support Maeker over the course of her lifetime.6 In the latter part of 2001, based on those promises, Maeker abandoned her twenty-year career in the architectural glass industry.7 In December 2010, Ross executed a written power of attorney authorizing Maeker to manage and conduct all of his financial affairs.8 That same month, Ross executed a written will naming Maeker the executor and trustee and leaving sufficient funds for her comfortable support and maintenance.9 On July 1, 2011, Ross ended their relationship by moving out of their joint residence, cutting off all ties to Maeker, and terminating all financial support.10
Maeker filed a complaint in the Chancery Division, Family Part, Somerset County, seeking enforcement of their oral palimony agreement and asserting additional legal and equitable theories of relief, including partial performance, unjust enrichment, quantum meruit, quasi-contract, equitable estoppel, and fraud.11 Ross moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Rule 4:6-2(e) on the ground that the 2010 Amendment to the Statute of Frauds bars enforcement of all oral palimony agreements.12 The family court denied Ross’s motion to dismiss.13 The court permitted Maeker to proceed on all her claims and awarded her pendente lite relief and attorney’s fees.14
The Appellate Division granted Ross’s motions for leave to appeal and to stay the trial court’s decision, then reversed and dismissed Maeker’s complaint with prejudice.15 Maeker petitioned for certification, which this Court granted.16 The Court also granted the motions of the New Jersey Chapter of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers and the New Jersey State Bar Association to participate as amici curiae.17
Whether the 2010 Amendment to the Statute of Frauds applies retroactively to oral palimony agreements formed before its effective date?18
The Legislature did not intend N.J.S.A. 25:1-5(h) to apply retroactively to oral palimony agreements predating the Amendment.19 Statutory language is generally the best indicator of the Legislature’s intent, but when ambiguous, courts turn to extrinsic sources.20 Courts generally enforce newly enacted substantive statutes prospectively unless the Legislature clearly expresses a contrary intent.21
Yes. The 2010 Amendment does not apply retroactively. According to the ESTABLISHED FACTS, the oral palimony agreement was formed during the relationship that began in 1998 and 1999, with promises made throughout the thirteen-year period and Maeker leaving her career in 2001, all before the Amendment's effective date of January 18, 2010.22 The family court denied the motion to dismiss recognizing that the Statute of Frauds is not retroactively applied to invalidate contracts entered into before its enactment.23
The Appellate Division erred by focusing on the date the cause of action accrued in 2011 rather than the date the contract was formed.24
The 2010 Amendment to the Statute of Frauds does not render oral palimony agreements that predate it unenforceable.25
Whether a will executed by one party, standing alone, can serve as a written memorialization of a palimony agreement under the Statute of Frauds?26
A will, by its very nature, is a revocable instrument and therefore cannot serve as the basis for a binding palimony agreement without more.27
No. Ross's will executed in December 2010, standing alone, cannot serve as written memorialization of the palimony agreement.28 The ESTABLISHED FACTS indicate that Ross executed a written will naming Maeker the executor and trustee and leaving sufficient funds for her support.29 As a stand-alone document it is revocable and does not evidence a promise of lifetime support in the manner required.30
A will executed by one party, standing alone, cannot serve as a written memorialization of a palimony agreement under the Statute of Frauds.31