Posted on 02/17/2006 10:38:33 PM PST by chet_in_ny
In the 1978 movie "Same Time, Next Year," a man and a woman meet by chance at a romantic inn, end up in bed together and, though each is married, repeat the rendezvous each year. The film's promo line ran, "They couldn't have celebrated happier anniversaries if they were married to each other."
But if palimony were at issue, neither of the trysters could have collected, at least not in New Jersey.
On Feb. 6, a state appeals court ruled that without cohabitation, an extramarital romantic relationship -- even one that spanned 70 years -- cannot be a basis for palimony support.
Jeanette Levine, now 85, sued her longtime lover, Philip Konvitz, in 2004 after Konvitz, then 91, began to slip into dementia and turned over his finances to his son and to a friend. He died that year.
According to the suit, Levine met Konvitz in Newark around 1920 when she was in her mid-teens. He proposed marriage but she declined, believing she was too young. He eventually married another woman and had children. She got married when she was in her 40s.
The two continued to maintain a relationship that was sometimes romantic. They would see each other when Levine's husband was away on frequent business trips, and Konvitz, a wealthy insurance executive, showered her with gifts, cash and a condominium, according to the suit.
But though Levine's relationship with Konvitz was open and above board, they never lived together -- a fact that the appeals court last week found fatal.
"Without such a bright-line requirement, the concept of 'marital-type' relationship is unacceptably vulnerable to duplicitous manipulation," Judge Jose Fuentes wrote in Levine v. Konvitz. "Requiring cohabitation also provides a measure of advance notice and warning, to both parties to a relationship, and to their respective family members, that legal and financial consequences may result."
Meeting the other benchmarks of palimony -- a marriage-type relationship and a promise to support made in exchange for valid consideration -- is not enough, wrote Fuentes, joined by Judges Dorothea Wefing and Barbara Wecker.
The lawyer for Konvitz's estate, Gerard Brew, of Newark's McCarter & English, says the ruling is a logical extension of precedent. "Requiring cohabitation sends a signal: You really have to take a major affirmative step before a significant claim exists."
Levine's lawyer, Patrick Collins, of Livingston, N.J.'s Franzblau Dratch, says he will appeal. "What's being overlooked is that [the precedent cases] dealt with implied agreements," he says. By contrast, the relationship here included promises of financial assistance, he says.
At age 85, she is not likely to be alive much longer to enjoy his financial success anyway. She might as well allow his son to enjoy it since he is likely to be alive longer than she.
Greed is disgusting.
Aside from the legalities, this is immoral.
Excellent ruling.
...when dementia takes over old Phil could have been thinking he was having affairs with the family cat. The "friend" could have been another longtime lover. Jeanette, sometime this week could wind up suing her gardener even though she don't have a garden....in another month or so, who knows?
What is the consideration besides sexual services?
This gives new meaning to "me love you long time."
According to the suit, Levine met Konvitz in Newark around 1920 when she was in her mid-teens.
Hmm. I'm no math whiz, but something ain't right.
You have reached a conclusion based on no facts:
You say "Greed is disgusting" , condemning the old lady, however, what about this possibility.
The geezer loses his mind, the son is taking his money and blowing it at the track. His long time pal, hires a lawyer to see what can be done. She doesn't need the money, she is trying to help her life long pal. I'd now say that the son is greedy, and "greed is disgusting". She let it remain as a court case, in hopes that she would recoup what she paid the lawyer.
I could come up with 2 or 3 more scenarios that fit the facts in the story, that make good valentines stories. don't condemn her based on this little article.
I think she may also have been one of the loveable Little Rascals/Our Gang cast. < /sarcasm >
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.