The recently-changed New Jersey Intestacy Laws (3B: 5-1 through 5-13) now include a domestic partner as a legitimate inheritor. The problem: suppose the deceased dies when both a domestic partner AND a spouse survive? Which of the two have priority as an heir of the estate?
Also suppose that spouses have been separated (not legally) for decades; that spouses reconciled shortly before the death of the deceased.
Also suppose that domestic partner and deceased spouse had a property deed which designated them as "husband and wife" (which is a Tenancy-By-Entirety type of document.) This type of deed is only valid for legitimately married husband and wife.
I'd be interested in opinions.

An addition to my previous question: assume spouse died in 2004, shortly before the first set of amended intestacy laws took effect. Which statutes would be effective, those under which deceased died, or the most current ones?

The spouse has priority. One of the requirements for registering in a domestic partnership is that the partners cannot be in a "marriage recognized in New Jersey". Thus, if the decedent had not dissolved the marriage, he or she would not be able to enter into a valid domestic partnership.

Even if the partners registered, the domestic partnership would not be valid, and the rights under the probate code are only provided to registered domestic partners. The fact that the spouses had been separated for years isn't controlling, however, it may have an effect if the decedent had a will and omitted the surviving spouse. In that case, the reconcilliation might be important.

As far as the deed, New Jersey law does not currently recognize tenants by the entirety arising between domestic partners but only between married spouses. I say "currently recognize" because it is my opinion that section 2 of the Domestic Partnership Act requires a broad interpretation of the Act. As a result, registered partners may very well have a right to be named as tenants in the entirety. This is untested, as yet, but I believe is ripe for determination.

In the Hennefeld case (the veterans tax exemption case in Montclair,) the court held that the couple's Canadian marriage did not entitle them to be treated as tenants by the entirety, but the judge was not asked to determine whether the domestic partnership status provided this. So this issue is still, in my opinion, undecided.

The question as to what statute would control is something that we will be litigating in Betty Jordan's case, so watch this space here. I believe that registration in a valid domestic partnership carries with it rights of marriage including intestacy rights and that the latest change in the law only conforms the probate code with the Domestic Partnership Act. Therefore the current amendments relate back.

Are health benefits covered? My school district has refused my longterm female (we live together) benefits. What is my recourse?

Even if your school district provides domestic partner benefits, you will be generally required to be registered domestic partners. In order to register in New Jersey, you must be in a same-sex couple age 18 or older, or an opposite-sex couple where BOTH partners are at least 62 years of age.

Your school district is entitled to discriminate against you if you do not fit one of those two categories.

Why do opposite-sex couples have to BOTH be 62 years of age "before" they become eligable? Suppose they do not want to get married? Are they being forced to marry in order to receive Domestic Partner benefits?
I am 59 years old, and my significant other just turned 61. We have lived together 20 years. I would like it very much if "He" get some medical care through my plan, but I was told today that we would both have to be at least 62, which is impossible.
If someone could possibly help me out and explain it to me, I'd really appreciate it. Thanks

I don't disagree with you completely. I think that any couple should be able to obtain legal recognition of their relationship. The exclusion of opposite-sex couples under the age of 62 was a political decision that was made at the time the DPA was passed.

I expect that eventually, this restriction will be challenged.