Husband and Wife were married in 1966 in a Jewish marriage ceremony in the U.S<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Avitzur v. Avitzur, 58 N.Y.2d 108; 445 N.E.2d 136; 459 N.Y.S.2d 572 (1983) Court: Court of Appeals of New York<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Husband and Wife were married in 1966 in a Jewish marriage ceremony in the U.S.. Prior to the ceremony, both parties signed a \u201cketubah,\u201d in which the Wife and Husband expressed willingness to live according to the standards of the Jewish law of marriage and recognized the authority of the \u201cBeth Din\u201d (Rabinical tribunal). In 1978, the couple was granted a civil divorce. According to Jewish law, the Wife is not considered divorced and may not remarry until a \u201cGet\u201d (Jewish divorce decree) is granted. To receive a \u201cGet,\u201d both Husband and Wife must appear before a Beth Din. The Husband refused to appear and so, prevented the Wife from obtaining a religious divorce. The Wife then filed a suit asking for an order compelling the Husband to appear before the Beth Din. The Husband filed for a motion to dismiss the Wife\u2019s complaint. The trial court denied the motion, but the appellate division granted the husband\u2019s motion to dismiss. The appellate court held that the ketubah being a religious agreement, the State had no interest in the parties\u2019 martial status after it had granted a civil divorce.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Wife appealed the appellate court\u2019s decision. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division. The court stated that the Wife was not requesting the enforcement of a solely religious practice, but of an agreement to appear before and accept the decision of a designated tribunal. Referring disputes to a nonjudicial forum is an objective, well-established principle of secular contract law that is neutral from religious doctrines. Even though the agreement was part of a religious ceremony, the Wife is requesting for the court to compel the Husband to carry out a secular obligation that he bound himself to when he signed the ketubah. The Husband\u2019s motion to dismiss the Wife\u2019s complaint was denied. Note: Cited in New York case, Aziz v. Aziz, 488 N.Y.S.2d 123 at 124 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1985), and in New Jersey case, Odatalla v. Odatalla, 810 A.2d 93 (2002), in support of the enforceability of the secular terms of a document that was a part of a religious ceremony.<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Husband and Wife were married in 1966 in a Jewish marriage ceremony in the U.S Avitzur v. Avitzur, 58 N.Y.2d 108; 445 N.E.2d 136; 459 N.Y.S.2d 572 (1983) Court: Court of Appeals of New York Husband and Wife were married in 1966 in a Jewish marriage ceremony in the U.S.. Prior to the ceremony, both […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"site-sidebar-layout":"default","site-content-layout":"default","ast-site-content-layout":"default","site-content-style":"default","site-sidebar-style":"default","ast-global-header-display":"","ast-banner-title-visibility":"","ast-main-header-display":"","ast-hfb-above-header-display":"","ast-hfb-below-header-display":"","ast-hfb-mobile-header-display":"","site-post-title":"","ast-breadcrumbs-content":"","ast-featured-img":"","footer-sml-layout":"","ast-disable-related-posts":"","theme-transparent-header-meta":"default","adv-header-id-meta":"","stick-header-meta":"default","header-above-stick-meta":"","header-main-stick-meta":"","header-below-stick-meta":"","astra-migrate-meta-layouts":"default","ast-page-background-enabled":"default","ast-page-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"ast-content-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"wds_primary_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[6,9],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3069","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-case-studies","category-divorce"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/karamah.org\/ar\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3069","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/karamah.org\/ar\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/karamah.org\/ar\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/karamah.org\/ar\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/karamah.org\/ar\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3069"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/karamah.org\/ar\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3069\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/karamah.org\/ar\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3069"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/karamah.org\/ar\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3069"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/karamah.org\/ar\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3069"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
Note: The case was appealed to the Supreme Court and writ of certiorari was denied.<\/p>\n\n\n\n