In The Matter Of The Estate Of Roccamonte

808 A.2d 838 (N.J. 2002)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

P was born in 1925. In 1941 she married Nicholas, who was then in the army and, following his war assignment, she returned alone to Bloomfield, New Jersey, obtaining employment as a model in New York City's garment center. When her husband returned from army service, they lived together in New Jersey. She continued to work, and in 1952, she gave birth to their daughter, Sandra. In the 1950's she met Arthur Roccamonte, the owner of a trucking business servicing the garment industry. He was also then married and had two children. P and Arthur had an affair that endured for the rest of his life. P's husband left her, and she and Arthur lived together intermittently until the mid-1960s. P abandoned Arthur when he refused to divorce his wife and marry her. Arthur wanted her to return, telephoned her repeatedly, and promised that if she came back to him, he would divorce his wife and he would provide for her financially for the rest of her life. Relying on his promises, she returned to New Jersey, divorced her husband, and took up residency in Glen Ridge. In 1970, Arthur leased an apartment in an upscale building in Glen Ridge where he and P lived together as husband and wife. P's daughter lived with them. The building was converted to cooperative ownership, and Arthur purchased an interest which he titled in P's name, and they lived together in that apartment as husband and wife until his death. He never divorced his wife, explaining to P that a divorce would place his business in jeopardy. He continued throughout his life to support his wife and children generously. Arthur was well off and paid for substantial improvements to the apartment, gave P cash of $600 a week, and bought her clothes and jewelry. They took frequent vacations and regularly dined at expensive restaurants. Arthur supported P's daughter, paying her college tuition and medical expenses. P continued to work in the garment industry until 1990, for a time as a model and later as a salesperson, earning a take-home of $250 weekly. P conducted herself in private and in public as a loyal and devoted wife. Arthur repeatedly assured her that he would see to it that she was provided for after his death. He repeated that promise in the presence of others. Arthur died intestate. P received the proceeds of an insurance policy on his life in the amount of $18,000 and a certificate of deposit in her name in the amount of $10,000. She had title to the apartment, the maintenance cost of which was then approximately $950 per month, and her jewelry. P received two weekly payments of $1,000 immediately after Arthur's death from his son, who was managing the trucking business. In October 1995, P commenced this palimony action against the estate seeking a lump-sum support award. The case spent two years in a contest of who had jurisdiction and eventually it was remanded to Probate. The trial judge rendered an oral decision dismissing the complaint. P's appeal from the memorializing order ensued, and Roccamonte II was decided in November 2001. The Estate's appeal as of right was argued. By that time seven and a half years had passed since Arthur's death. P is now 77 years old, and her attorney represented to us that she has exhausted her assets and is living in poverty, dependent entirely on social security payments of under $1,000 a month and food stamps. She makes a home with her disabled daughter who is in receipt only of social security disability payments.