Devaney v. L'ESPERANCE

Defining the cause of action for palimony “in general terms [as] a claim for support between unmarried personsf,]” ante at 253, 949 A.2d at 746, the majority declares that “cohabitation is not an essential requirement for a cause of action for palimony, but a marital-type relationship is required.” Id. at 248, 949 A.2d at 744. However, from its inception, a cause of action for palimony, even if valid, always has a bare proof of cohabitation. That requirement, and the rationale that undergirds it, require that the majority’s reasoning be rejected. However, because the majority ultimately…