Why worry about trad-marriage or same-sex marriage, when you don't even have to live together to be considered married? . . .

My friend who is a syndicated advice columnist and a capturer of her pink Rambler thief has some interesting comments on her blog . . .

What's Next, Friendimony? . . .

http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/06/25/whats_next_frie.html#comments

Story source . . .

http://blog.nj.com/ledgerarchives/2008/06/palimony_ruling_sets_precedent.html

"In a decision described as the first of its type in the nation, the state Supreme Court ruled yesterday that a couple does not have to live together in order for one partner to sue the other for palimony after a breakup.

The high court ruled that judges should consider the "entirety" of a couple's relationship, and that cohabitation is only one factor in deciding whether they had a "marital-type relationship.

The ruling overturned an appeals court decision last year that said there is no basis for a palimony suit unless a couple lived together.

"It is the promise of support, expressed or implied, coupled with a marital-type relationship, that are the indispensable elements to support a valid claim of palimony," Justice John Wallace wrote for the court. "


Last edited by f1reverb on 6-26-08 02:27; edited 1 time in total