Complaint against the Estate - Case Study Example

Plaintiff, Barbara A. Botis filed a complaint against the Estate of Gary A. Kudrick in an attempt to receive palimony. Plaintiff argues that she and Kudrick were in a “marriage-type relationship” before his death, and, therefore, has rights to palimony in the form of his two residences and other compensation. Defendant denies that they were ever in such as relationship and motions to dismiss her complaint along with issuing counterclaims against the plaintiff. While the law recognizes the right to palimony for two unmarried individuals who separate, a recent amendment requires the palimony agreement in writing. While the plaintiff does not have her palimony agreement in writing, because she filed her claim before the enactment of the new legislature, the judge ruled the amendment does not apply to her case. In doing such, the judge further ruled to deny the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint and the defendant’s counterclaims.
PLAINTIFF:
Barbara A. Botis is the girlfriend of the late Gary A. Kudrick. Botis claims she and Kudrick were in a “marriage-type relationship” for the greater part of 32 years after Kudrick divorced his wife. Botis further claims that Kudrick promised to take care of her after his death even though he did not put her in his will. Therefore, Botis seeks palimony- or compensation made by one member of an unmarried couple to another member after separation.
DEFENDANT:
Estate of Gary A. Kudrick denies that Botis and Kudrick were ever in a “marriage-type relationship” and, therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to any compensation. Furthermore, the Estate seeks compensation from the plaintiff for unauthorized withdrawals from a home equity line on one of the deceased’s residences, removing belongings from one of the residences, and refusing to return stolen financial documents. In addition, the defendant later requested to expand the later counterclaim to include fraud, perjury, attorney fees, and punitive damages.
STANDING:

Plaintiff stands that she and the late Gary Kudrick met in high school in approximately 1954. Although they initially married other people, after both of their respective marriages ended, they began a committed relationship. In 1976, Kudrick moved into Boris’s residence while still maintaining his separate residence. They then lived together for approximately eight years before selling her residence and moving into his expanded residence in 1984 of which she claims she invested $17,000. Then, in 1995, they supposedly purchase another home together, but the plaintiff's name was taken off the deed for income tax reasons. The plaintiff uses the later story to support the idea that they were in a “marriage-type relationship.” The plaintiff became financially dependent on the deceased because he was in a better financial situation than she. Therefore, the plaintiff claims the deceased promised financial support even in the event of his death. Kudrick later developed cancer and shortly before his death, Botis learned that he had not written her into his will and had left his entire estate to his grandchildren. Based on the later allegations, the plaintiff seeks palimony including the transfer of both residences to her name and other compensation.

CAUSE OF ACTION:

The law defines palimony as "a claim for support between unmarried persons[,]" by the decision made in Devaney v. L'Esperance, 195 N.J. 247, 253 (2008), and has recognized it as a lawful means to request compensation for approximately thirty years. However, on January 18, 2010, the statute of frauds was amended to specify that palimony agreements are only valid if presented in some form of writing and signed by both parties (N.J.S.A. § 25:1-5(h). Nevertheless, the later amendment was enacted after Kudrick’s death and Boris’s claim for palimony. The question, therefore, is whether the legislature meant the amendment to be used retroactively or prospectively. The plaintiff’s cause of action is justified because neither she nor the deceases could have reasonably predicted the new requirements for palimony agreements and the legislature does not specify that the law should be applied exclusively retroactively.

HOLDING: The judge ruled that the amendment to the statute would not apply retroactively and denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint and their counterclaims.

The latter means that the law would apply to future claims not already filed claims. In addition, the judge reasons that our courts have "'long followed a general rule of statutory construction that favors prospective applications of [a] statute[,]'" citing Cruz v. Central Jersey Landscaping, 195 N.J. 33, 45, 947 A.2d 1228 (2008), which further backs up the case for prospective action of the law. Furthermore, since the plaintiff's claims were filed before the rule was enacted, it could not apply to her claim, and that to deny her claim would take away her palimony rights that the state has upheld for the past thirty years (Kozlowski v. Kozlowski, 80 N.J. 378, 384, 403 A.2d 902 1979 ). Finally, the claim is valid because the deceased also could not follow the new amendment rules as he had already passed them by the time the amendment was enacted. Read More