Uploaded April 2025 | Updated September 2026, 3 weeks ago
Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 42,700 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 988 casebooks ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Devaney v. L'Esperance
New Jersey Supreme Court
949 A.2d 743 (2008)
When an unmarried couple splits up, one of the pair might sue the other for support. Such a claim is informally known as palimony.
In Devaney versus L'Esperance, the New Jersey Supreme Court considered whether a palimony claim could exist between an unmarried couple who'd never lived together.
Helen Devaney was twenty three when she began a romantic relationship with Francis L'Esperance.
L'Esperance was almost twenty years older and married. Initially, Devaney and L'Esperance saw each other frequently and vacationed together. But when they weren't vacationing, they rarely spent the night together. L'Esperance repeatedly told Devaney that he would divorce his wife and marry her.
After ten years, Devaney moved away to study, but she and L'Esperance kept up their relationship.
L'Esperance gave Devaney money every month for expenses.
Eventually, L'Esperance convinced Devaney to return. L'Esperance bought a car for Devaney and a condominium for her to live in. He also gave her money for expenses and paid for her education.
After twenty years, L'Esperance broke off the relationship. He had Devaney evicted from the condo. Devaney filed a palimony complaint seeking ongoing support from L'Esperance.
After a bench trial, the trial court ruled for L'Esperance.
The court found that Devaney and L'Esperance had never entered into an implied agreement for support and that the two hadn't had a marital type relationship.
In reaching its decision, the court considered many factors, including the fact that DeVaney and L'Esperance had never cohabited.
DeVaney appealed. The appellate division affirmed the judgment, holding that cohabitation was an essential element of a palimony claim. The New Jersey Supreme Court granted review.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: quimbee.com/cases/devaney-v-l-esperance
The Quimbee App features over 42,700 case briefs keyed to 988 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: quimbee.com/cases/devaney-v-l-esperance
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here:
Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=QuimbeeDotCom
Quimbee Case Brief App ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Facebook ► facebook.com/quimbeedotcom
Twitter ► twitter.com/quimbeedotcom
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries
Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 42,700 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 988 casebooks ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Devaney v. L'Esperance
New Jersey Supreme Court
949 A.2d 743 (2008)
When an unmarried couple splits up, one of the pair might sue the other for support. Such a claim is informally known as palimony.
In Devaney versus L'Esperance, the New Jersey Supreme Court considered whether a palimony claim could exist between an unmarried couple who'd never lived together.
Helen Devaney was twenty three when she began a romantic relationship with Francis L'Esperance.
L'Esperance was almost twenty years older and married. Initially, Devaney and L'Esperance saw each other frequently and vacationed together. But when they weren't vacationing, they rarely spent the night together. L'Esperance repeatedly told Devaney that he would divorce his wife and marry her.
After ten years, Devaney moved away to study, but she and L'Esperance kept up their relationship.
L'Esperance gave Devaney money every month for expenses.
Eventually, L'Esperance convinced Devaney to return. L'Esperance bought a car for Devaney and a condominium for her to live in. He also gave her money for expenses and paid for her education.
After twenty years, L'Esperance broke off the relationship. He had Devaney evicted from the condo. Devaney filed a palimony complaint seeking ongoing support from L'Esperance.
After a bench trial, the trial court ruled for L'Esperance.
The court found that Devaney and L'Esperance had never entered into an implied agreement for support and that the two hadn't had a marital type relationship.
In reaching its decision, the court considered many factors, including the fact that DeVaney and L'Esperance had never cohabited.
DeVaney appealed. The appellate division affirmed the judgment, holding that cohabitation was an essential element of a palimony claim. The New Jersey Supreme Court granted review.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: quimbee.com/cases/devaney-v-l-esperance
The Quimbee App features over 42,700 case briefs keyed to 988 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: quimbee.com/cases/devaney-v-l-esperance
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here:
Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=QuimbeeDotCom
Quimbee Case Brief App ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Facebook ► facebook.com/quimbeedotcom
Twitter ► twitter.com/quimbeedotcom
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries
