Avitzur v. Avitzur, 58 N.Y.2d 108 (1983)

A provision in a Ketubah (Jewish marriage contract) requiring a husband to appear before a rabbinical tribunal (Beth Din) to obtain a religious divorce (Get) is enforceable in civil court, provided that such enforcement relies on neutral principles of contract law and does not require the court to delve into religious doctrine.

Summary

This case concerns the enforceability of a Ketubah, a Jewish marriage contract, in civil court. The wife sought to compel her husband to appear before a Beth Din, a rabbinical tribunal, as stipulated in their Ketubah, to obtain a Get, a Jewish divorce. The husband refused, arguing the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction due to the religious nature of the agreement. The New York Court of Appeals held that the provision requiring appearance before the Beth Din was enforceable as a secular contractual obligation, as long as its enforcement did not require the court to interpret religious law or interfere with religious authority. The court emphasized that it was merely enforcing a promise to appear before a tribunal, not compelling a religious act.

Facts

The Avitzurs were married in 1966 in a Jewish ceremony and signed a Ketubah. The Ketubah contained a provision stating their agreement to recognize the Beth Din of the Rabbinical Assembly as having authority to counsel them and to summon either party at the request of the other, to enable them to live according to Jewish law of marriage. The husband was granted a civil divorce in 1978. However, under Jewish law, the wife could not remarry without a Get, which required the husband’s appearance before a Beth Din. The husband refused to appear, and the wife sued to compel him to comply with the Ketubah.

Procedural History

The trial court denied the husband’s motion to dismiss and the wife’s motion for summary judgment. The Appellate Division modified, granting the husband’s motion to dismiss, holding the Ketubah was an unenforceable liturgical agreement. The wife appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

1. Whether a provision in a Ketubah requiring a husband to appear before a Beth Din to obtain a Get is enforceable in civil court.
2. Whether enforcing such a provision violates the constitutional prohibition against excessive entanglement between church and state.

Holding

1. Yes, because the provision constitutes a secular agreement to refer a matter to a nonjudicial forum, analogous to an antenuptial agreement to arbitrate disputes.
2. No, because the court can enforce the agreement using neutral principles of contract law without interpreting religious doctrine or interfering with religious authority.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals reasoned that the Ketubah provision was analogous to a valid antenuptial agreement to arbitrate disputes. The court stated that the Ketubah “should ordinarily be entitled to no less dignity than any other civil contract to submit a dispute to a nonjudicial forum, so long as its enforcement violates neither the law nor the public policy of this State.” The court emphasized that the wife was not seeking to compel the husband to grant a Get, but merely to enforce his promise to appear before the Beth Din. The court relied on the “neutral principles of law” approach approved by the Supreme Court, stating that the case could be decided solely on contract law, without reference to religious principles. The court noted that the fact that the agreement was part of a religious ceremony did not render it unenforceable. The court concluded, “In short, the relief sought by plaintiff in this action is simply to compel defendant to perform a secular obligation to which he contractually bound himself. In this regard, no doctrinal issue need be passed upon, no implementation of a religious duty is contemplated, and no interference with religious authority will result. Certainly nothing the Beth Din can do would in any way affect the civil divorce.”