Form of a binding arbitration agreement for the resolution of disputes in front of a Beth Din panel. Car passed a resolution obliging member rabbis to require the bride and groom, at all marriages where they are in office, to have a rabbinically sanctioned marriage contract that, in the event of divorce, would require them to submit to a Beth Din lawsuit over the issue of a get. Among the Dayanim are leading authorities of Jewish law, as well as lawyers and businessmen who are familiar with secular law and contemporary business practices. Where appropriate, the Beth Din will include experts in an arbitration panel or consult them as an expert. Before a case is tried before the Beth Din, the parties must enter into a binding arbitration agreement. The Beth Din conducts its proceedings in a manner consistent with the requirements of secular arbitral law, so that Beth Din`s judgments in the secular judicial system are legally binding and enforceable. A journal that contains articles on Jewish jurisprudence and the practice of Beit Din, with a particular focus on the politics and practice of Beth Din of America. Each edition of the Journal contains anonymized versions of the Din Torah (arbitration) decisions rendered by the Beth Din of America. However, THE RCA`s mandate agreements are more akin to a private arbitration agreement than to an effective marriage agreement, which feeds into future disputes about the scope and applicability of the agreements as valid arbitration agreements. The agreements found on the CAR website have a provision that states that standard rabbin contracts adopted by the CAR have a language it calls « arbitration agreements » and contain optional sections that allow The Beth Din to rule on all matters relating to custody and/or finance. « The parties agree that Beth Din of America has the authority to decide all foreign exchange disputes (including the division of ownership and maintenance), » reads an optional field on the Binding Agreements form.
The question of future third-party effectiveness may ultimately depend on whether the courts treat these mandate agreements as private arbitration agreements to deal with issues of equitable distribution, assistance and custody, or marriage contracts. Ultimately, it will always be the specific language of the agreements and whether divorce and custody issues can be appropriately addressed in this forum and whether this is the case with the new New Jersey Court Rule 5:1-5 (amended September 1, 2015), which concerns fawzy v. Fawzy, 199 N.J. 456, 482 (2009) on the implementation, scope and structure of arbitration agreements in appeals brought by family members, including those covered by the Uniform Arbitration Act, N.J.S.A. 2A: 23B-1, and. and New Jersey`s Alternative Procedure for the Conflict Resolution Act, N.J.S.A 2A:23A-1, and . . .