Hebrew | Francais

Search


> > Archive

Shabbat Parashat Emor 5780

P'ninat Mishpat: Holding Guarantors to their Commitment? part II

(based on ruling 71055 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts)

Case: The plaintiff (=pl) reached a settlement with his wife (=wi) over child support in a beit din as part of an agreement to give a get. Wi’s uncle and aunt (=def) obligated themselves in beit din that if the wife would successfully sue to raise the child support, def would pay back to pl the additional sum she was awarded. Beit din gave the obligation the status of a ruling. Wi did sue pl in court, and pl agreed to raise the child support, with the judge giving the agreement the status of a ruling. Pl is now suing def for 31,200 shekels for a few years of additional payments. Def argue that they are exempt for a few reasons: 1. No act of kinyan was made to obligate def, which is necessary because this is not a normal case of a guarantor (i.e., there is no borrower). 2. There was a lack of realization of the likelihood of obligation (asmachta), since def did not know that wi was not bound by the ruling. 3. Furthermore, according to the Rambam, one cannot obligate himself in an open-ended obligation, and one can claim kim li (I follow the minority opinion). 4. The obligation mentions payment in the case where the court rules in wi’s favor, whereas here pl agreed himself to pay.

 

Ruling: [We were in the midst of discussing whether def’s obligation is valid according to the law of the land, considering that it is arguably against the public interest.]

 Par. 30 of the Law of Contracts states that a contract whose purpose or content is illegal, immoral, or contradicts public welfare is null. There have been varied rulings in the courts over whether an agreement to compensate a husband whose wife sues for higher child support contradicts public welfare. A summary can be found in Justice Benzion Greenberger’s ruling (BMS 24590/98). He concludes that the assumption is that it damages the welfare of the children, but if the father can prove that it does not negatively affect them, it is valid. In general, if the wife’s obligation is void because of its impact on the children, the guarantors’ obligation should not apply.

In this case, we do not believe that the def’s paying has a negative impact on the couple’s one daughter or on the public, as we will explain. The obligation to reimburse is not upon wi; if def pay, they will not be able to recoup their losses from her. Therefore, wi will not be deterred from suing for child support, and def’s payment will not deprive the daughter of needed funds.

One can argue that indirectly, if an ex-wife knows that her close relatives will have to pay, she will not sue for increased child support. In general, the courts do not factor in indirect effects. Also, this must be weighed against the grave damage caused if we easily strike down agreements made in divorce settlements. First, there is a public interest in agreements being kept. Second, if those negotiating a divorce settlement know that the settlement will not be kept, husbands are less likely to give a get when called for. Also, in this case, specifically, the amount agreed upon for child support, while somewhat low, is not extremely low.

[We will finish off next time with a look at whether the conditions for payment were met.]

Top of page
Print this page
Send to friend


Dedication

We daven for a complete and speedy refuah for:

 

Nir Rephael ben Rachel Bracha
Refael Yitchak ben Chana

Netanel Ilan ben Sheina Tzipora

Netanel ben Sarah Zehava

Meira bat Esther

Yair Menachem ben Yehudit Chana

Rivka Reena bat Gruna Natna

Lillian bat Fortune

Yafa bat Rachel Yente

Eliezer Yosef ben Chana Liba

Ro'i Moshe Elchanan ben Gina Devra

Esther Michal bat Gitel

Yehudit Sarah bat Rachel

 

Together with all cholei Yisrael

 

Hemdat Yamim is dedicated

to the memory of:

those who fell in wars

for our homeland

 

Eretz Hemdah's beloved friends

and Members of

Eretz Hemdah's Amutah

 

Rav Shlomo Merzel z”l
Iyar 10 5771

 

Rav Reuven Aberman z"l

 Tishrei 9     5776

 

Mr. Shmuel Shemesh  z"l
Sivan 17 5774

 

R' Eliyahu Carmel z"l

Rav Carmel's father

Iyar 8    5776

 

Mrs. Sara Wengrowsky

bat R’ Moshe Zev a”h.

Tamuz 10       5774

 

Rav Asher Wasserteil z"l

Kislev 9   5769

 

R'  Meir ben

Yechezkel Shraga Brachfeld z"l

&

Mrs. Sara Brachfeld z"l

Tevet 16 5780

  

R'  Yaakov ben Abraham & Aisha

and

Chana bat Yaish & Simcha

Sebbag, z"l

 

Rav Yisrael Rozen z"l
Cheshvan 13 5778

 

Rav Benzion Grossman z"l
Tamuz 23    5777

 

Rav Moshe Zvi (Milton)

Polin z"l

Tamuz 19     5778

 

R' Abraham Klein z"l

Iyar 18 5779

 

  Hemdat Yamim
is endowed by Les & Ethel Sutker
of Chicago, Illinois
in loving memory of
Max and Mary Sutker
and
Louis and Lillian Klein, z”l

site by entry.
Eretz Hemdah - Institute for Advanced Jewish Studies, Jerusalem All Rights Reserved | Privacy Policy. | Terms of Use.