Question:

 

I have a reconciliation agreement with a divorce option which was authorized at the family court. I am furious with my husband for not keeping to the terms. He was very verbally abusive and didn’t bring home the money he said he would according to the agreement. I followed the procedure in our agreement for notifying that the reconciliation option was no longer relevant , and that I would be putting the divorce option into effect . I  now have a date for the divorce at the rabbinate. However, I am wondering whether to “go all out to get him” and file for cancellation of the agreement. I asked the lawyer who has been representing me and he said just go ahead with the divorce, but I am wondering whether I should not let my husband get away with such behaviour, and take the legal initiative and punish him. Is that advisable ?

 

Answer:

 

If a wife in this position has a date set for a divorce at the rabbinate, then basically the situation whereby he behaves negatively during their trial reconciliation period i.e. breaches his financial commitment, is catered for in the agreement ; she has the option for divorce, and even a date at the rabbinate. Thus there is no need to consider cancellation of the agreement. Pleas of this nature rarely succeed, even when they are legally relevant. Negative behaviour like verbal abuse is not grounds for cancellation of the reconciliation/divorce agreement . Only legal behaviour that falls into the strict category of grounds for cancellation of agreements under contract law will qualify. Negative behaviour such as failure to keep to the terms of the agreement is covered by clause/s dealing with this - i.e. the mechanism for notifying the other party about the ending of the reconciliation period, and the activation of the divorce option.

 

In other words, it seems that the husband in this case breached the terms of the agreement, but the wife would be responding correctly legally by implementing the divorce option contained in it. If she were to file for a cancellation of the whole agreement in this situation would appear to be mistaken, and would end up punishing herself , and not her husband, by paying more money for unnecessary legal action that had no chance of success . However, if she is still unsure, she can get a second opinion from another lawyer who will weigh up the possible gains against the risks involved, and advise accordingly. One caveat – from the facts given it would seem that legal advice urging a woman in this situation to file for cancellation of the plea would be unprofessional and unethical. It would be advising a client to take irrelevant and unproductive legal action to line his own pocket.