Denying a Divorce can cost more than you imagine

The Honorable Judge Mr. Itai Katz from the Family Court in Jerusalem decided on May 26, 2010 in favor of the husband as follows:

The Claim:

• Damages in the form of monetary compensation in the amount of One Million Shekels
• filed by the Plaintiff (hereinafter also: "The Man")
• against his wife - Defendant (the "woman")
• for her refusal to accept the “Get” (Jewish Divorce) from him despite rulings of the Grand Regional Rabbinical court, (below, respectively: "Beit Din" and "Great Court") requiring her to do so.

Relevant factual background (primarily the sequence of events in the courts):

The plaintiff, a retired IDF rabbi and the defendant married in 1972 and as a result of this marriage they had five children, all now adults.

On October 28, 2003 the man filed for divorce to the rabbinical court in Jerusalem, after leaving his home forever.

On February 19, 2006 the court ruled the following:

“By majority opinion based on the facts that the parties have lived separately for a long time, the husband has serious allegations that the woman harms a proper family life… It seems clear that there is no chance for peace between them as they wrote and as all the consultants (experts) agreed on. What`s more it has been about 10 years that there are no intimate relations between them… Therefore, the court calls the parties to reach a fair divorce agreement. If you both do not reach an agreement, it should be established that the husband may deposit the “Ketuba” and he will be exempt from paying “his wife’s alimony”.

The woman appealed to the Great Rabbinical Court. In its decision dated September 20, 2006 the court dismissed the appeal granting her an extra 45 days to accept the divorce. The court went even further and wrote “if the woman keeps refusing the divorce, we shall consider giving the man permission to re-marry”.

Finally in November 2008 the sides reached an agreement concerning the property and only the property.

The Party’s Claims:

The man claimed: “The defendant`s actions toward me and her many injustices including negligence; her refusal to obey court’s rulings requiring her to accept the divorce, caused damage to me including my freedom, my dignity and my self-realization”.

The man also noted that “her refusal is a serious and significant violation of fundamental human rights enshrined in the Basic Law on Human Dignity and Liberty, damage which has been recognized by the courts as such entitles the plaintiff adequate compensation”. He further argues that the defendant harmed him by her refusal to accept the “Get” not only infringed on him mental and moral damage but also substantial and significant economic damage due to his profession as he has always been a rabbi.

The woman claimed: She is not refusing to receive the “get” but only “postponing” because she feels she didn’t receive what she is entitled to and the man is not cooperating in the division of the property as the court has ruled. She also claimed that no damage was caused by her refusal because the Rabbis permitted him to remarry, as opposed to her being restricted from doing so. She also complained about the Beit Din’s “behavior” toward her and so on.

The Ruling:

The plaintiff based his claim on the two evils and they are: negligence and breach of statutory duty.

The fact the Rabbinical Court did give the man permission to re-marry (a very unusual decision) shows that the woman’s refusal was not temporary as she claimed.

The Honorable Judge also found the man’s claim that he was entitled to compensation for her negligence (refusing the divorce) by the Israeli Law and the ruling of the courts in Israel also adding that her behavior was not reasonable.

The decision was very lengthy and very detailed and in the end the Honorable Judge decided in favor of the man, granting him almost 500,000 shekels in compensation and another 4,000 shekels for every other month the woman refuses the divorce.

A word of wisdom:

The courtroom is the last place on earth you should seek revenge and if you dare involve the children you will learn just how bad it can get.

You must understand that sometimes accepting “this is it - the end of the road” will cost less and be better for you in the long run.

Sincerely,

Tzvi Szajnbrum, Attorney at Law