## Facts

- Susan R. Avitzur and Boaz Avitzur married in 1966 in a Jewish religious ceremony.
- In connection with the ceremony, they signed Hebrew/Aramaic and English versions of a *ketubah* (Jewish marriage contract).
- The *ketubah* stated the parties’ intent to live according to Jewish marital law and included an agreement recognizing a specified *Beth Din* (rabbinical tribunal) as having authority to counsel and to summon either spouse at the request of the other.
- The agreement authorized the *Beth Din* to impose compensation terms for failure to respond to a summons or carry out its decision.
- In 1978, a New York court granted the parties a civil divorce on the ground of the wife’s cruel and inhuman treatment.
- In 1980, the wife sued for specific performance to compel the husband to appear before the designated *Beth Din*, seeking steps toward a religious divorce (*get*).
- The husband moved to dismiss, arguing lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and unconstitutional entanglement because the dispute was religious.
- The trial court denied dismissal; the Appellate Division reversed and dismissed, reasoning civil courts should not enforce such religious agreements after civil divorce.
- The wife appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

## Issues

1. Whether a civil court may enforce, under neutral contract principles, a spouse’s promise in a *ketubah* to appear before a designated *Beth Din*.
2. Whether ordering such appearance impermissibly entangles the court in religious doctrine in violation of constitutional or public-policy limits.

## Decision

- The New York Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division and reinstated the complaint.
- The court held that civil courts may recognize and enforce the secular terms of a religious marriage agreement.
- Ordering the husband to appear before the *Beth Din* enforced a forum/appearance obligation and did not require adjudication of Jewish law or issuance of a religious divorce.
- The case was remitted for further proceedings consistent with enforcing the contractual appearance obligation.

## Legal Principles

- Civil courts may enforce secular, contract-like obligations contained in religious agreements when the dispute can be resolved using neutral principles of law.
- A court may compel specific performance of an agreement to appear before a designated tribunal (including a religious tribunal) if the obligation is sufficiently definite and lawful.
- Enforcement is constitutionally permissible when the court’s role is limited to contract formation and performance and does not require interpretation of religious doctrine or supervision of religious proceedings.
- The religious character of a document does not bar enforcement of its secular terms; public policy generally permits private ordering in marital agreements absent doctrinal inquiry or statutory conflict.

## Conclusion

The court held that a spouse’s promise in a *ketubah* to appear before a specified *Beth Din* is a secular obligation enforceable in civil court under neutral contract principles, and that compelling such appearance does not create unconstitutional church–state entanglement.


Avitzur v. Avitzur, 58 N.Y.2d 108, 446 N.E.2d 136 (N.Y. 1983)