Get Back

The New Jersey Appellate Court found no Constitutional violation in enforcing a religious aspect of a marital settlement agreement

The parties engaged in two years of contentious litigation prior to the divorce trial, which began in September 2020. They continued attempts to settle their dispute throughout the duration of the trial. A critical area of dispute centered on plaintiff’s desire to obtain a get—a divorce recognized under Jewish religious law. Before a verdict was reached in the Family Part divorce trial, the parties tentatively reached an agreement on all issues, including each party’s obligations with respect to a beis din proceeding to obtain the get that plaintiff sought.

Defendant agreed to the provision but then sought to avoid enforcement

Defendant raises several arguments on appeal in his initial and reply briefs. He first argues that his appeal is timely and not interlocutory as plaintiff contends. Second, he argues that the trial court should not have sanctioned him for filing his stay motion and abused its discretion in awarding counsel fees to plaintiff. Defendant’s remaining arguments pertain to the legitimacy of the trial court’s enforcement of the MSA. He argues: the trial court had no authority to order him to arbitrate in the beis din; the trial court erred by relying on a “religious document” and by requiring defendant’s participation in beis din proceedings; and the trial court violated the First Amendment by ruling on a religious agreement.

The court here affirmed the obligation

We agree with the trial court that nothing in the MSA is unconscionable or contrary to public policy as to render it unenforceable. As the trial court aptly found, the parties entered into a comprehensive agreement to resolve their contentious marital dispute. Both sides made concessions as consideration for the benefit of resolving the divorce litigation. Both parties were represented by counsel. The MSA, moreover, was carefully drafted after extensive negotiation. Revisions to the initial draft were exchanged. The parties ultimately agreed to and executed the MSA, and both testified they had entered into it voluntarily and free from coercion or duress. On two separate occasions, defendant testified under oath regarding the obligations he agreed to with respect to the beis din proceedings. This was done with full awareness that obtaining a get was extremely important to plaintiff because, absent a get, she would continue to be viewed as married under Jewish law, thereby preventing her from remarrying within her faith.

We are satisfied on this record the MSA is a legally binding contract based on ample consideration from both parties and entered into knowingly and voluntarily. The Family Part judge—who was intimately familiar with this protracted litigation and the litigants—thus had the lawful authority to enforce the agreement as written.

The court relied on contract principles in rejecting the First Amendment objections of the defendant.

Fee award

The trial court found that defendant had acted in bad faith in failing to comply with his obligations under the MSA, which was a “compelling factor in awarding the fees.” For reasons we explained in the preceding section, we reject defendant’s attempt to frame the trial court’s award of counsel fees as a penalty or sanction for not participating in the beis din proceeding in violation of his religious rights. The record makes clear the trial court awarded counsel fees based on defendant’s noncompliance with the MSA. The record also shows the trial court reviewed the certification of services with respect to all applicable factors, see R. 5:3-5(c), and made a determination that defendant had the financial ability to pay plaintiff’s fees. We have no basis upon which to overturn or modify the trial court’s decision to grant plaintiff’s request for counsel fees.

(Mike Frisch)