Hebrew | Francais

Search


> > Archive

Shabbat Parashat Behar Bechukotai 5780

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

(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 wi 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 have seen that the agreement is valid, and now we conclude with the question of whether it was activated.]

Generally, a guarantor is required to pay only after there has been an attempt to receive payment from the debtor. However, this is irrelevant here because the whole nature of the agreement was that the “guarantors” would be obligated to pay instead of wi.

Was the condition for obligation, that the courts obligate pl, fulfilled? The agreement speaks of a ruling by the courts, and in this case, there was an agreement that was recognized by the court as a ruling. In this we agree with def that since the courts would have approved even much higher sums than agreed by pl and wi, such an open-ended obligation was not what def agreed to.

However, the continuation of the agreement is that def are responsible for all of the expenses that come due to wi’s suit. This should include the minimum plausible amount that the courts would have ruled had there not been compromise. To the extent that there is doubt, it is to the detriment of pl, according to the rule that the beneficiary of an agreement has the burden of proof. The smallest amount that the courts give in cases like this is 2,000 shekels a month for one child.

Pl claims that the costs of this litigation should be included in expenses. However, since we posit that this adjudication into the meaning of the agreement is a legitimate one we do not believe that the obligation relates to that type of expense. It only relates to the expenses of wi suing, which wi had said she was not going to do.

[We are not mentioning the final sum because it includes elements of future payments based on various price indexes.]

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

 

R' Leiser Presser

 ben R' Aharon Yitzhak and Bracha

24 Iyar

and members of his family

who perished in the shoah

Al Kiddush Hashem

 

  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.