World
Nov. 29—Life is full of tragically comic episodes, some of which end up in the courts, where they become subjects of dry analyses of facts and law as well as black humor.
One recent example is a Massachusetts civil case in which Julie Rabinowitz and Mark Schenkman each accused the other of breach of contract.
Those who've reached the age where they believe they've seen everything will have to take another look. In this case, the trial and appellate courts' rulings were driven by the unique nature of the alleged contract breach: Rabinowitz tried to kill Schenkman with a hatchet.
Under normal circumstances, that's a criminal case. Indeed, Rabinowitz pleaded guilty and was sentenced to prison followed by a lengthy period of probation.
But it became a civil morass because Rabinowitz and Schenkman, the parents of four children, had married and divorced.
Where does breach of contract fit into the mess?
As part of the divorce agreement, Schenkman agreed to pay Rabinowitz $212,000 over five years in equal monthly installments of $3,533.33.
A dentist, Schenkman faithfully made his required payments from March 2014 to August 2015. That's when she tried to kill him.
Understandably put out, Schenkman responded by not making any more alimony payments.
So she sued him for breach of their post-marital contract settlement. He replied that she was the one who breached the contract because her attempt to kill him was a "violation of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing implicit" in their agreement.
Who won? A Massachusetts appellate court recently upheld a trial judge's ruling that Rabinowitz's hatchet attack was an effort to undermine Schenkman's "separation agreement" that provided a "structured and orderly process (for him) to spread his payments over five years while he continued to earn an income from his dental practice and care for his children, who remained in his sole legal and physical custody."
Although Rabinowitz's attack on her husband was undeniable, her lawyer was nothing if not creative in his attempt to deflect its fallout.
Among others things, he argued that the hatchet attack was "irrelevant" to her contract claim and considering it was "unduly prejudicial by casting her character in a negative light." He further argued that if the court decided to admit evidence of the hatchet attack and Rabinowitz's guilty plea, she should be allowed "to explain" why she tried to kill him.
He further argued that the separation agreement "was not conditioned on post-agreement conduct" — in other words, nothing barred her attack.