Minkin v. Minkin

• Citation: 434 A.2d 665,180 N.J.Super. 260
• Parties: Brenda MINKIN, Plaintiff, v. Barry MINKIN, Defendant.
• Decision Date: 22 July 1981
• Court: Superior Court of New Jersey

Page 260

180 N.J.Super. 260

434 A.2d 665

Brenda MINKIN, Plaintiff, v. Barry MINKIN, Defendant.

Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division Bergen County.

Decided July 22, 1981.

Lucianna, Bierman & Stillman, Hackensack, for plaintiff (Steven Stillman, Hackensack, of counsel).

Ferro, Lamb & Kern, Ridgewood, for defendant (Ralph Ferro, Ridgewood, of counsel).

MINUSKIN, J. S. C.

Plaintiff wife moved post judgment for an order requiring the defendant to obtain and pay for the costs of a Jewish ecclesiastical divorce known as a "get." ¹

The significance of her motion is that only a husband may secure the get and without it the wife cannot remarry under Jewish law.

The issues are:

(1) Whether the parties have entered into a contract enforceable by this court, and

(2) Whether the relief sought by plaintiff would unconstitutionally infringe upon defendant's First Amendment right of exercise of religious freedom.

The parties were married in a Jewish ceremony where they entered into a contract, called a "ketuba," in which they agreed to conform to the provisions of the laws of Moses and Israel. ² These laws require the husband to give his wife a get when he alleges an act of adultery on his wife's part. In the instant case the husband counterclaimed for divorce on the ground of adultery, giving rise to the wife's claim to require her husband to secure a get. The husband has refused and opposes any order to compel him to do so, claiming that such an order would violate the Establishment of Religion Clause of the First Amendment. The wife asserts that without the get she would be effectively restrained from remarrying in a manner consistent with her religious beliefs.

To compel the husband to secure a get would be to enforce the agreement of the marriage contract (ketuba). A court of equity will enforce a contract between husband and wife if it is not unconscionable to do so and if the performance to be compelled is not contrary to public policy. See Garlinger v. Garlinger, 129 N.J.Super. 37, 322 A.2d 190 (Ch. Div. 1974); Schlemm v Schlemm, 31 N.J. 557, 158 A.2d 508 (1960); Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of U. S. v. Huster, 75 N.J.Super. 492, 183 A.2d 473 (App.Div. 1962).

What constitutes an agreement against public policy was defined in Garlinger, supra, where the court said,

An agreement is against public policy if it is injurious to the interest of the public, contravenes some established interest of society, violates some public statute, is against good morals, tends to interfere with the public welfare or safety, or, as it is sometimes put, if it is at war with the interests of society and is in conflict with public morals. 17 Am.Jur.2d, Contracts, § 179 at 541. (129 N.J.Super. at 40, 322 A.2d 190).

In the instant case the ketuba contract requires the participants to comply with certain reciprocal obligations pertaining to the marriage. For example, the wife is to perform the role of homemaker and to supply a dowry; the husband is to support and care for the wife. The ketuba is devoid of any requirement that could be construed to be against public policy. No interest of society is affected or impaired by its provisions, nor does it conflict with public morals. On the contrary, its purpose is obviously to promote a successful marital relationship and its enforcement, therefore, actually advances public policy. The contract simply calls for defendant, in securing a get, to do that which he agreed to do. Without compliance plaintiff cannot remarry in accordance with her religious beliefs. For these reasons the contract should be specifically enforced.

The question of whether an order of this court for specific performance of the ketuba constitutes violation of defendant's First Amendment rights remains to be determined. Authority to permit the issuance of such an order appears in Koeppel v. Koeppel, 138 N.Y.S.2d 366 (Sup.Ct. 1954), and Rubin v. Rubin, 75 Misc.2d 776, 348 N.Y.S.2d 61 (Family Ct. 1973). In Koeppel, where the facts parallel the instant case, the court said:

Defendant has also contended that a decree of specific performance would interfere with his freedom of religion under the Constitution. Complying with his agreement would not compel the defendant to practice any religion, not even the Jewish faith to which he still admits adherence (paragraph Second of the complaint not denied in the answer). His appearance before the Rabbinate to answer questions and give evidence needed by them to make a decision is not a profession of faith. Specific performance herein would merely require the defendant to do what he voluntarily agreed to do. (at 373) The Koeppel and Rubin opinions are within the standards promulgated by the U.S. Supreme Court in its landmark holding of Committee for Public Education and Religious Liberty v. Nyquist, 413 U.S. 756, 772-773, 93 S.Ct. 2955, 2965-2966, 37 L.Ed.2d 948, 962-963 (1973). See, also, Marsa v. Wernik, 86 N.J. 232, 246, 430 A.2d 888 (1980). The Nyquist court set forth a three-prong test for determining whether an act violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

... (T)o pass muster under the Establishment Clause the law ³ in question, first, must reflect a clearly secular legislative purpose, second, must have a primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion, and, third, must avoid excessive entanglement with religion. (Nyquist, supra 413 U.S. at 773, 93 S.Ct. at 2965.)

To determine whether enforcing the marriage contract would violate the three-prong test, and because "this issue is one of the most sensitive areas in the law," the court on its own motion requested the testimony of several distinguished rabbis ⁴ well versed in Jewish law, and one of whom (Rabbi Richard Kurtz) is also a practicing attorney specializing in matrimonial law.

Rabbi Macy Gordon defined the get as a written document of severance, authorized by the husband and delivered to his wife, which states that all marital bonds between them have been severed. He stated that a Jewish couple upon marriage enters into a ketuba, which is essentially a civil contract delineating the obligations of the parties during the marriage. The marriage is severable only by the death of one of the parties or by the acquisition of a get. Failure of the husband to secure the get places the wife in the position of an "aguna" so that she is precluded from remarrying. He said that the get does not involve a religious ceremony or require a rabbi's presence, and although the husband is required to take the initiative, he does not have to be a believer, state any doctrine or creed, or even acknowledge his Jewishness. Because of this, he concluded that the acquisition of a get is not a religious act, but a severance of a contractual relationship between two parties.

Rabbi Judah Washer agreed that a get is a civil document for the same reasons, adding that the document contains no reference to God's name. In addition, in his opinion, a...