Mendel EpsteinAccording to Jewish law, God prescribed both the way to unite souls in marriage and gave instructions how those souls can be severed. While Jewish law requires one to follow the law of the land, and thus a civil divorce is required, that civil divorce cannot serve as a substitute for a halachic (conforming to the strictures of Jewish law) divorce, the “get.” Without a get, no matter how long the couple is separated, and regardless of civil law documents, in the eyes of Jewish law the couple is still married. As reported at Chabad.org:

“According to biblical law, a married couple is released from the bonds of matrimony only through the transmission of a bill of divorce from the husband to the wife. This document, commonly known by its Aramaic name, “get,” serves not only as a proof of the dissolution of the marriage in the event that one or both wish to remarry, it actually effects the divorce.”

To appreciate the scope of the problem, note, for example, that in December, 2015 70-year old Rabbi Mendel Epstein of Brooklyn (pictured), dubbed “The Prodfather,” was sentenced to 10 years in jail after he was convicted of charging wives thousands of dollars to torture their husbands into delivering a get. See, NY Daily News.

In 1983, New York enacted Domestic Relations Law §253 to address husbands who withhold the get. That section, in combination with DRL §236(B)(5)(h), and DRL §236(B)(6)(d) empowers a court to direct specific performance of a Ketubah (the marriage contract) or other agreement by which a husband previously agreed to provide a get to his wife. Civil contempt sanctions are available for non-compliance. Additionally, for withholding a get, the court may deny a husband any right to equitable distribution of the marital estate and/or award the wife maintenance at a level designed to encourage compliance. If the husband is the plaintiff, the court may also deny him a civil divorce.

In its April 13, 2016 decision in Mizrahi-Srour v. Srour, the Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed Kings County Supreme Court Justice Esther M. Morgenstern‘s award to the wife of maintenance of $100 per week for five years, which would be increased to $200 per week if the husband did not provide a get to the wife within 60 days, and also distributed to the wife 70% of the marital assets, and awarded counsel fees.


Continue Reading

midlife crisisI have no statistics, but it certainly appears as if a disproportionate number of the people consulting me are 43 to 46 years old husbands. I consider that the age of the male midlife crisis. I must count myself among that group.

However, a recent article in the March/April 2015 issue of Scientific American Mind

In this week’s Ted Talk, Ruth Chang discusses hard choices. Soon after finishing Harvard Law School, Dr. Chang regretted her decision and switched paths. She received her doctorate in philosophy at Oxford University, and is now a professor at Rutgers focused on choice, freedom, value and action.

For Dr. Chang, “understanding hard choices uncovers a hidden power each of us possesses.” It would seem that the full use of that power is vital when dealing with divorce.

In any easy choice, one alternative is better than the other. In a hard choice, one alternative is better in some ways, the other alternative is better in other ways, and neither is better than the other overall.

“We also shouldn’t think that hard choices are hard because we are stupid.” Choosing after college between law school and philosophy, Dr. Chang remembers thinking:

If only I knew what my life in each career would be like. If only God or Netflix would send me a DVD of my two possible future careers, I’d be set. I’d compare them side by side, I’d see that one was better, and the choice would be easy.

At the time, Dr. Chang “did what many of us do in hard choices: I took the safest option.” But she learned being a lawyer was not who she was. It’s a mistake to think that in hard choices, one alternative really is better than the other, but we’re too stupid to know which, and since we don’t know which, we might as well take the least risky option.” Even with full information, a choice can still be hard.

For Dr. Chang, making hard choices may best be solved by our  “normative powers,” our “power to create reasons.” You create the reasons to pursue your choices.

We get to exercise our normative power, the power to create reasons for yourself, to make yourself into the kind of person for whom [your decision is the right choice].

Making the hard choice is not dictated by reasons given to us. “Rather, it’s supported by reasons created by us. . . . You might say that we become the authors of our own lives.”

In almost all instances, making the decision to end a marriage is a hard choice. But then making the decision what to do when your spouse tells you, “I want a divorce” is a hard choice as well. You are not handed the DVDs of your alternative lives if you stay married or get divorced; of the alternatives of seeking to win the spouse back, or get revenge, or move on.


Continue Reading

New York’s Domestic Relations Law §25, enacted in 1907, provides that a marriage is valid, even in the absence of a marriage license, if it was properly solemnized. However, New York County Supreme Court Justice Matthew F. Cooper, in his May 29, 2014 decision in Ponorovskaya v. Stecklow held that D.R.L. §25 could not be used to validate a marriage ceremony that failed to meet the  legal requirements of Mexico where the ceremony was performed. While so holding, Justice Cooper called for the statute to be amended or repealed, and joined the debate on whether Universal Life Church “ministers” could “properly solemnize” marriages.

Justice Cooper’s recitation of the facts merits quotation:

[Ms. Ponorovskaya], who is a clothing designer and business owner in Manhattan, and [Mr. Stecklow], a lawyer, began their relationship in 2004. While in Mexico for a 2009 New Year’s celebration, [Mr. Stecklow] proposed to [Ms. Ponorovskaya] overlooking the Mayan ruins in Tulum. The parties subsequently planned a Mexican destination wedding at the Dreams Tulum Resort & Spa. . . . On February 18th, the couple had a wedding ceremony on the resort’s beach. The ceremony was performed under a chuppah, a canopy under which a couple stands during a Jewish wedding. Certain Hebrew prayers were recited, vows were exchanged, and there was a glass-breaking ritual, as is customary at Jewish weddings.

Despite these traditions, the ceremony was not performed by a rabbi. Instead it was conducted by [Mr. Stecklow]’s cousin, Dr. Keith Arbeitman, a dentist who lives in New York. In 2003, in order to perform a marriage for friends, he became an ordained minister of the Universal Life Church (“ULC”), a distinction easily achieved by paying a fee on the ULC’s website. . . . [A]t oral argument on the motion, [Ms. Ponorovskaya]’s counsel produced a certificate that he printed off the internet certifying that Dr. Arbeitman is indeed a minister in good standing with the ULC. Likewise, during the ceremony Dr. Arbeitman told the audience, “I am an ordained minister — this will be a legal union.”


Continue Reading

“Chutzpah” may be defined as audacity (wikipedia); or unmitigated effrontery, impudence or gall (urbandictionary.com and dictionary.reference.com). Perhaps Rosemarie B.T. should be pictured in those sources [no, that is not her pictured to the right].

Rosemarie married her second husband, Antony, in a civil ceremony in Beacon, NY, on April 28, 2000. Upon the

Marital Residence.jpgA spouse contributing separate property (most commonly pre-marital, gifted, or inherited funds) to the purchase of the marital residence does not make a gift of (half of) that payment to the other spouse, even if the residence is held by the parties jointly.

So was the holding of the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, in its

Church and State.jpgIn the United States, there is perhaps no greater blending of Church and State than with marriage and divorce. New York’s recognition of same-sex marriage shines a light on a debate as old as the country.

It took the 16th century Protestant Reformation to reject marriage as a religious sacrament.  For  Martin Luther, marriage was “a worldly thing.”  In the 17th century, the English Parliament declared “marriage to be no sacrament.” It was to be performed by a justice of the peace, not by a minister. The Puritans brought secular marriage to America. Back in England the pendulum swung back to the religious right in 1753, when the Church of England was put in charge of all marriages (including those of Catholics, but not of Quakers and Jews).

In New York, marriage is a hybrid. Domestic Relations Law §10 declares:

Marriage, so far as its validity in law is concerned, continues to be a civil contract, to which the consent of parties capable in law of making a contract is essential.


Continue Reading