New Jersey Appellate Division Affirms Arbitration Appointment in Family Matter Involving Religious Divorce Agreement

In a recent unpublished opinion, the New Jersey Appellate Division affirmed a Family Part decision appointing a non-rabbinic arbitrator to resolve disputes arising under a marital settlement agreement executed after a religious divorce. The case addresses several important issues at the intersection of family law, arbitration, contract enforcement, and the religious question doctrine.

The underlying dispute arose from a non-dissolution family matter involving parties who were married in an Orthodox Jewish ceremony and later obtained a Jewish divorce, or “get.” Their marital settlement agreement required that disputes be submitted to arbitration before either party sought relief in civil court. Over time, multiple arbitrators were appointed under subsequent agreements, and litigation followed after one arbitrator’s award was vacated because the arbitrator failed to maintain a proper record of the proceedings.

After the prior arbitration award was vacated, the Family Part ordered the parties to select a new arbitrator. If they fail to agree, the court would then choose an arbitrator or Bais Din from options submitted by the parties. The court further stated that the selected arbitrator had to be familiar with the children’s educational and religious upbringing. When the parties could not agree, the trial court appointed Robert Kornitzer, Esq. as arbitrator. The plaintiff later challenged that appointment, arguing in part that a rabbinic arbitrator should have been selected and that the appointment raised religious-liberty and religious-question concerns.

The Appellate Division rejected those arguments and affirmed. A central part of the court’s analysis was judicial estoppel. The panel concluded that the plaintiff could not seek enforcement of the January 18, 2024, order and then later attack the same selection methodology as improper. Because his own application helped form the basis for the trial court’s eventual appointment of the arbitrator, the court found it would be unjust to entertain his inconsistent position on appeal.

The court also examined the language of the marital settlement agreement and found that it did not require the appointment of a rabbinical arbitrator. According to the panel, the plain language only gave Rabbi Herszaft discretion to choose a permanent arbitrator if no permanent arbitrator had been agreed upon within three months of the agreement being signed. The court found that this provision did not govern future vacancies in perpetuity and did not require that any successor arbitrator be a rabbi. Applying ordinary principles of contract interpretation, the panel concluded that the agreement did not support the plaintiff’s position.

The opinion is also notable for its discussion of the religious question doctrine. Citing established New Jersey law, the Appellate Division reiterated that civil courts may resolve disputes involving religious parties or agreements when they can do so through neutral principles of law, but they may not decide issues that require interpretation of religious doctrine. Here, the court determined that enforcing the prior order and appointing an arbitrator familiar with the children’s religious upbringing did not entangle the court in religion or require interpretation of religious law. Instead, the court viewed the matter as a straightforward exercise in enforcing contractual and procedural rights through neutral legal principles.

Although the opinion is unpublished and does not constitute binding precedent, it offers a useful illustration of how New Jersey courts may approach arbitration provisions in family-related agreements that arise from religious contexts. It underscores several broader principles: parties may be held to the litigation positions they previously advanced, settlement agreements will generally be enforced according to their plain terms, and courts remain able to adjudicate disputes touching on religious circumstances so long as they do not interpret religious doctrine.

For practitioners, the decision is a reminder of the importance of precise drafting in arbitration provisions, especially where religious institutions, customs, or decision-makers may be involved. It also reinforces the need for consistency in litigation strategy when seeking judicial enforcement of arbitration-related orders.

Angelo Sarno & Laura Guinta Gencarelli with Sarno da Costa D’Aniello Maceri Webb LLC are honored to have represented the appellant in this appeal.

Note: The opinion is marked “Not for Publication Without the Approval of the Appellate Division,” meaning it does not constitute binding precedent, although it is binding on the parties to the case.