Divorce

1. Koeppel v. Koeppel
   

   138 NYS2d 366 (S.Ct. Queens County, 1954)

   • Forcing defendant to fulfill an earlier agreement to appear before a rabbinical court is not unconstitutional.
2. Koeppel v. Koeppel
   

   161 NYS2d 694, 3 AD2d 853 (App. Div., 1957)

3. Rubin v. Rubin
   

   348 NYS2d 61, 75 Misc2d 776 (Fam. Ct. Bronx County, 1973)

   • Court will not enforce payment of agreed upon alimony if wife refuses to accept get that she had agreed to accept in same agreement containing alimony.
4. Margulies v. Margulies
   

   344 NYS2d 482, 42 AD2d 517 (1 Dept, 1973)

   • Since get is valid only if given of husband's free-will, jailing him for contempt would be pointless.
5. Pal v. Pal
   

   356 NYS2d 672, 45 AD2d 738 (App. Div., 1974)

   • Trial Court has no authority to convene a Rabbinical tribunal to prepare get.
6. Waxstein v. Waxstein
   

   395 NYS2d 877, 90 Misc2d 784 (S.Ct. Kings County, 1976 ) aff'd, 394 NYS2d 253, 57 AD2d 863

   • Court could grant specific performance of provision in separation agreement requiring parties to obtain get.
7. Minkin v. Minkin
   

   180 NJ Super 260, 434 A.2d 665 (1981)

   • A ketubah is analogous to any prenuptial agreement.
   • A get is not a religious act.
8. Shapiro v. Shapiro
   

   442 NYS2d 928, 110 Misc2d 726 (S.Ct. Kings County, 1981)

   • Israeli court's order for husband (NY resident) to give get to wife (Israeli resident) could be enforced in NY under doctrine of comity.
9. Avitzur v. Avitzur
   

   449 NYS2d 83, 86 AD2d 133 (App. Div., 1982)

   • Court could not enforce liturgical agreement not incorporated into already granted civil divorce.
   • Ketubah, by its own language, shows itself to be a religious document.
10. Avitzur v. Avitzur
    

    58 NY2d 108, 459 NYS2d 572, 446 NE2d 136 (1983)

    • Ketubah requires husband to appear before bet din.
11. Becher v. Becher
    

    245 A.D.2d 408, 667 N.Y.S.2d 50 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997), 97-03205. Dated December 15, 1997.

    • Jewish Divorce; New York "Get Law"; lower court should not have entertained motion challenging constitutionality of statute as issue was moot.
12. Klagsbrun v. Va'ad Harabonim of Greater Monsey
    

    53 F. Supp. 2d 732 (D. N.J. 1999), No. 97-3134. Dated June 15, 1999. Opinion by J. Harold A. Ackerman.

    • Husband and wife, Orthodox Jews, were divorced in civil court but husband refused to grant the wife a get, a religious divorce, enabling the wife to remarry pursuant to the tenets of her faith; the husband, however remarried claiming that he had received Rabbinic dispensation for doing so; local Rabbinic communal association, operating as a religious court, ordered husband to issue a get (a religious divorce to his first wife or present evidence that he had obtained a valid rabbinic dispensation permitting him to remarry; after husband refused to do so, a public notice was circulated by the Rabbinic association and defendant Rabbis setting forth the facts as they saw it and calling on the local community to shun the husband; action for libel and slander by the husband and his new wife dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; central issues could not be resolved under neutral principles of law, but required a determination of essentially ecclesiastical issues; New Jersey law.
13. Jacobs v. Dobrei
    

    991 S.W.2d 462 (Tex. App. 1999), No. 05-96-01536-CV. Dated April 22, 1999. Opinion by J. Frances Maloney.

    • Court was justified under the facts from deviating from the standard possession order for the Christmas school vacation; under the standard order the divorced parents alternate the years in which they have possession of the child; here the mother was Christian and the father Jewish and under the deviation the mother had possession during the Christmas vacation every year, even if it coincided with the Jewish holiday of Hannukah; the deviation initially arose as the result of the father's request to ensure that his religious beliefs were protected and he could teach his religious beliefs to their son and the court did not show a preference for the mother's religion; Texas law. B
14. Davidovics v. Shore
    

    1999 Ohio App. LEXIS 3490 (Ohio Ct. App. 1999), No. 75589. Dated July 29, 1999. Opinion by J. Patricia Ann Blackmon. Dissenting opinion by J. Terrence O'Donnell.

    • Shared parenting agreement incorporated into judgment of divorce provided that both parents would reside in Ohio and that the child would receive a Jewish religious education and upbringing; the parties agreed to mutually agree on the extent of such education, upbringing and lifestyle; after mother became an Orthodox Jew and moved to New York, the court granted the father primary possession of the child during the school year; it was not error to further modify the agreement to provide, over the father's objection, that the mother was to select three Jewish religious schools and that the father was to select one of the three; although the child was now to spend the majority of his time with his father, it was error to grant the mother possession during all of the holiday periods as such impeded the father's ability to share his religious holidays and traditions with his son.

Copyright © 1997-2008 by Ira Kasdan. All rights reserved.
DISCLAIMER