Recently, several decisions have been released by the Appellate Division concerning when, where, how, and when a Court compel parties to submit to the authority of the Bais Din onContinue Reading Compliance with Agreement to Submit to Bais Din’s Jurisdiction on the Issue of Get Not Optional, Appellate Division Rules
My recent blog post, Appellate Division Rules That A Court Cannot Compel Arbitration on Get Issue Absent Agreement, discussed the constraints faced by secular courts in the context of…Continue Reading New Bill – A1475 – Offers a Potential Avenue for Legal Relief to Victims of Get Refusal
Get refusal is an issue to which secular courts have yet to find an adequate solution because of constraints implicating freedom of religion and the state’s prohibition against entanglement with…Continue Reading Appellate Division Rules That A Court Cannot Compel Arbitration on Get Issue Absent Agreement
Duress has long been considered by New Jersey courts as a cognizable defense where the provision of a Get – defined as a Jewish ecclesiastical divorce – is conditioned upon a…Continue Reading Religious Coercion is Legal Duress
An article recently came out in the New York Times about a dynamic that tends to unfold in the context of Bais Din proceedings, where one parent leaving the Chassidic…Continue Reading Reflections on the New York Times’ “Why Some Hasidic Children Can’t Leave Failing Schools” and How Agreements to Arbitrate can Address Gaps in the Bais Din Process
If you missed Vacating an Arbitration Award in the Bais Din – Part I, go back and give it a read before delving into Part II, which primarily will…Continue Reading Vacating an Arbitration Award in the Bais Din – Part II
I’ve previously blogged about issues surrounding the Agreement to Arbitrate and how that may be set aside in certain circumstances. But what about a case where the Agreement to Arbitrate…Continue Reading Vacating an Arbitration Award in the Bais Din – Part I
If you learn nothing else from my blog series on Arbitrations in the Bais Din, remember this one caveat: do not sign an Agreement to Arbitrate without the advice of …Continue Reading Do Not Sign Agreement to Arbitrate Without the Advice of a Lawyer
In a prior blog post, Setting Aside Bais Din Agreements to Arbitrate Due to Procedural Issues, I discussed the absolute necessity of the Umpire/Arbitrator’s Disclosure and the fact that…Continue Reading Arbitration Questionnaire Versus Umpire/Arbitrator’s Disclosure
Last year, in the Fawzy decision, the New Jersey Supreme Court put procedures in place approving parents’ ability to arbitrate child custody opinion. This specifics of this decision was the subject of a prior blog at the time of the decision. One of the procedural safeguards required by Fawzy was a verbatim record of the proceedings so that there could be meaningful review of the decision by a court. Yesterday, the Supreme Court revisited this issue in the case of Johnson v. Johnson. In May of this year, I previously blogged about this case though at that time, we all thought that the bigger issue for the court’s consideration was whether Fawzy could be retroactively applied.
In Johnson, there was no verbatim record as was required by Fawzy, for the simply reason that the parties had agreed that there was not going to be a verbatim record. They did, however, agree that the arbitrator would provide detailed findings of fact. In fact, the arbitrator did provide extremely detailed findings both in the initial opinion and upon a motion for reconsideration. After Fawzy was decided, an appeal ensued and the arbitration award was set aside for no verbatim record.
The Supreme Court in Johnson started by reminding us of what Fawzy requires with regard to an agreement to arbitrate:
must be in writing or recorded in accordance with the requirements of N.J.S.A. 2A:23B-1.
In addition, it must state in clear and unmistakable language: (1) that the parties
understand their entitlement to a judicial adjudication of their dispute and are
willing to waive that right; (2) that the parties are aware of the limited circumstances under which a challenge to the arbitration award may be advanced and agree
to those limitations; (3) that the parties have had sufficient time to consider the
implications of their decision to arbitrate; and (4) that the parties have entered into
the arbitration agreement freely and voluntarily, after due consideration of the
consequences of doing so.