Palimony

[OhBiteMe]

Virginia. My question is related to Palimony. I lived with my long term fiance, during which time we purchased a home, car, split bills, had my disabled brother move in with us, and now I am on disability due to colostomy and later related issues. We have been together for 13 years and have always worked towards our future and taking care of our loved ones. About 8 months ago I suspected he was cheating, needless to say here we are. Can pursue Palimony?

 

[Just Blue]

Virginia. My question is related to Palimony. I lived with my long term fiance, during which time we purchased a home, car, split bills, had my disabled brother move in with us, and now I am on disability due to colostomy and later related issues. We have been together for 13 years and have always worked towards our future and taking care of our loved ones. About 8 months ago I suspected he was cheating, needless to say here we are. Can pursue Palimony?

Is your ex afluent? How much does he make per year? What is your income?

 

[OhBiteMe]

He makes about $75,000 a year. I am on disability and only clear$1,200 a month.
































4

 

[adjusterjack]

If you are referring to support payments (not division of property) you can pursue it but you probably won't get it.

Unmarried people are not legally entitled to alimony-like payments unless there was a written agreement addressing them or a court finds a oral or implied agreement.

You are, however, entitled to a division of property that you own jointly.

 

[Eekamouse]

Virginia. My question is related to Palimony. I lived with my long term fiance, during which time we purchased a home, car, split bills, had my disabled brother move in with us, and now I am on disability due to colostomy and later related issues. We have been together for 13 years and have always worked towards our future and taking care of our loved ones. About 8 months ago I suspected he was cheating, needless to say here we are. Can pursue Palimony?

Thirteen years and you never married and now you want him to continue to support you? Are you going to be on disability forever? You can't seriously think you're entitled to support from him.

 

[zddoodah]

Can pursue Palimony?

You "can pursue" anything you like.

"Palimony" is a colloquialism that was coined by by a celebrity divorce attorney in California in the mid- to late 1970s. The attorney's client filed an unsuccessful lawsuit against the actor Lee Marvin. The plaintiff and Marvin weren't married, but the plaintiff claimed a right of support similar to alimony or spousal support. Although the plaintiff was unsuccessful, the case resulted in a California Supreme Court opinion that said it might be possible for two unmarried parties to contract for the support of one by the other in exchange for companionship.

Based on a very quick and cursory google search, it appears that Virginia also recognizes such claims, but they are, at bottom, claims for breach of contract, which means you have to be able to prove the existence of a contract between you and your boyfriend by which he agreed to support you. Nothing in your post allows for any conclusion as to whether or not you allege or could prove such a contract.

 

[LdiJ]

You "can pursue" anything you like.

"Palimony" is a colloquialism that was coined by by a celebrity divorce attorney in California in the mid- to late 1970s. The attorney's client filed an unsuccessful lawsuit against the actor Lee Marvin. The plaintiff and Marvin weren't married, but the plaintiff claimed a right of support similar to alimony or spousal support. Although the plaintiff was unsuccessful, the case resulted in a California Supreme Court opinion that said it might be possible for two unmarried parties to contract for the support of one by the other in exchange for companionship.

Based on a very quick and cursory google search, it appears that Virginia also recognizes such claims, but they are, at bottom, claims for breach of contract, which means you have to be able to prove the existence of a contract between you and your boyfriend by which he agreed to support you. Nothing in your post allows for any conclusion as to whether or not you allege or could prove such a contract.

You are forgetting the Clint Eastwood/Sondra Locke palimony suit that came after that. It is a case that was litigated twice and settled twice, but Sondra Locke did end up with palimony.

 

[FlyingRon]

Virginia requires some written (or in some cases oral or implied) agreement to provide for such on breakup. It's not something you're automatically entitled to just because you pretended to be married or whatever.

 

[xylene]

Consider couples therapy and reconciling with your partner.

 

[zddoodah]

You are forgetting the Clint Eastwood/Sondra Locke palimony suit that came after that. It is a case that was litigated twice and settled twice, but Sondra Locke did end up with palimony.

I forgot nothing. I wasn't attempting to provide a comprehensive discussion of every palimony case ever litigated, and the two Locke v. Eastwood suits (and particularly the second one that had nothing to do with palimony) wouldn't add anything of relevance for the OP.

 

[FlyingRon]

None of these took place in Virginia. AJ and I provided the correct answer for Virginia. You don't get any kind of post-separation rights just for shacking up with someone.

 

[Litigator22]

You are forgetting the Clint Eastwood/Sondra Locke palimony suit that came after that. It is a case that was litigated twice and settled twice, but Sondra Locke did end up with palimony.

That is not true! Sondra/Sandra Locke was never awarded nor did she receive "palimony" from her former lover Clint Eastwood!

What she did do in l996 was to accept an out-of-court, undisclosed settlement of a lawsuit for damages she'd filed against Eastwood grounded on fraud, misrepresentation (and I'm assuming tortuous interference with a contractual relationship). The case sometimes known by the portmanteau "Lockwood".

It seems that in order to avoid the publicity of the suit she'd filed against him in l989 alleging breach of contract, his renounced promise "to take care of her forever", share alike, emotional distress, gifts of real estate, etc., etc., Eastwood purportedly brokered a production deal with Warner Bros., Inc.. (WB) whereby Locke was to develop and direct a series of motion pictures.

In exchange for the WB/production/director deal" and other consideration Locke dropped her l989 lawsuit. Ultimately she did direct two successful pictures with WB for which she was paid $1.5 M.

But then without explanation WB began a closed-door policy by consistently rejecting project after project that she pitched for development. This she rightfully claimed shattered her reputation. (Testimony from WB executives revealed that not only had Eastwood influenced her sudden falling out with the studio - it was commonly understood that the studio was not to work with her - but in fact he had underwritten the two directorial fees.

Consequently, there is no truth to the assertion that Sondra Locke's so-called palimony case against Clint Eastwood was twice litigated. It was never litigated. She dismissed her 1989 suit for breach of contract, etc., in exchange for the brokering of the production deal Eastwood had supposedly made with Warner Bros., Inc. .

 

[zddoodah]

That is not true! Sondra/Sandra Locke was never awarded nor did she receive "palimony" from her former lover Clint Eastwood!

What she did do in l996 was to accept an out-of-court, undisclosed settlement of a lawsuit for damages she'd filed against Eastwood grounded on fraud, misrepresentation (and I'm assuming tortuous interference with a contractual relationship). The case sometimes known by the portmanteau "Lockwood".

The first Locke v. Eastwood suit certainly did result in the payment of "palimony" by Eastwood to Locke. Locke sued Eastwood for palimony in April 1989. That suit settled in November 1990 (after being litigated for 19 months), with Locke receiving a house, a bunch of cash (both up front and over time), and a film development deal with Warner Bros. that Eastwood procured for her. It is very much reasonable to refer to the proceeds of a settlement of a palimony lawsuit as "palimony."

The 1996 settlement was the result of a second lawsuit filed by Locke against Eastwood for fraud and breach of fiduciary duty (Locke also sued Warner Bros. for breach of contract). This second lawsuit was settled, but I agree (as noted in my post #10 in this thread) that the second lawsuit had nothing to do with "palimony."

Consequently, there is no truth to the assertion that Sondra Locke's so-called palimony case against Clint Eastwood was twice litigated. It was never litigated.

Of course it was litigated. The palimony suit was litigated for 19 months before it was settled. The second lawsuit (fraud and breach of fiduciary duty) was also litigated. It was filed in June 1995 and went to trial in September 1996. The trial concluded and, while the jury was deliberating, Locke and Eastwood settled.