NY Judge Refuses to Order Support for Jilted Girlfriend

A New York judge has refused to order an advertising executive to make support payments to his former girlfriend, notwithstanding the exec’s promsies to support her, and his promises that if the couple ever broke up he would treat their separation as if they had been married. The former girlfriend had asked the court to impose a trust in her favor over certain of the defendant’s assets as a means of enforcing his promise – unfulfilled – to support her after the couple split up. In dismissing the claim for a constructive tryst, the court noted that the plaintiff had failed to establish 3 of the 4 legal requirements for the imposition of a constructive trust and that, in any event, longstanding New York policy recognizes that unmarried couples do not have the same property and financial rights that married couples do when a relationship ends. Which all goes to show that, yes, marriage does still matter, and that in some cases promises are worth the paper they are written on. An interesting question, which I will write more on when I am further into my research, is whether the court would have enforced the equivalent of a pre-marital agreement if the cad exec had put his promises in writing. Any New York folk have any insight into what NY law is on that question?

PA Judge Denies Divorce to Same Sex Couple

In an interesting case out of Berks County, The Legal Intelligencer reports that Berks County Court of Common Pleas Judge Scott Lash has ruled that he cannot grant a divorce to a same sex couple who married last year in Massachusetts. Massachusetts recognizes same sex marriages, but Pennsylvania does not. In his ruling, Lash reasoned that he would not recognize the couple’s marriage under Pennsylvania law because homosexual marriage does not, in the Judge’s view, meet the definition of a “fundamental right” as enunciated by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. The couple could not seek a divorce in Massachuestts because that state’s law requires that parties filing for divorce live in the state for a year before filing. I would fully expect that this case will be appealed, but a reversal would seem unlikely. As our society becomes increasingly more mobile, however, it is inevitable that judge’s in states not recognizing same sex marriage will increasingly be called upon to consider the whole range of associated legal issues.