Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
P worked for D as a receptionist for his ophthalmology medical practice. D was fifty-one, and P was twenty-three. D had been married to his current wife for approximately twenty years. They began a twenty-year long intimate relationship. D continued to live with his wife and never cohabited with P, though for a time they had dinner together several times per week. D promised to divorce his wife, marry P, and have a child with her. P moved away because D did not come through but eventually moved back because D again promised to leave his wife, marry her, and have a child with her. D provided financial support to P, including purchasing the condominium unit; paying for her undergraduate and graduate education (Devaney ultimately received a Master's degree); purchasing a car for her use; and money for various other expenses. The relationship eventually ended, and D evicted P from the condominium. The trial judge determined that the parties had not entered into a 'marital-type' relationship. The judge considered that the parties had not cohabited, had not spent significant periods of time together, and had not demonstrated an intention to commingle property. The parties did not hold themselves out to the public as husband and wife and P did not attend social gatherings with D's friends, family, or colleagues. P's contributions to the relationship were not similar to those a wife would make in a marriage. The judge found that the relationship was more akin to a 'dating relationship.' P filed a complaint for palimony. It was denied, and P appealed.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co