Westwood, CA – Judge Denies Chabad Claim for $18 Million Pledge

    10

    Westwood, CA – A judge in a tentative ruling denied an $18 million claim that the president of Chabad of California Inc. maintained was verbally promised him by a philanthropist before the man’s death.

    Join our WhatsApp group

    Subscribe to our Daily Roundup Email


    Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Mary Ann Murphy stated in a 69-page proposed statement of decision issued Tuesday that she found insufficient evidence after a non-jury trial that Roland Arnall made the pledge to Rabbi Boruch Shlomo Cunin for the construction of a Chabad educational center before dying in March 2008 at the age of 68. Cunin maintained the pledge later became the obligation of Arnall’s widow, Dawn Arnall.

    “It is not for the court to decide whether Mr. Arnall actually promised $18 million to Chabad,” Murphy wrote. “It is for the court to determine, based on the testimony of the witnesses and the exhibits admitted in evidence, whether Chabad proved by a preponderance of evidence that Mr. Anrall promised Chabad $18 million.”

    Chabad attorney Marshall Grossman told Murphy that Chabad spent more than $800,000 in planning costs for the project in reliance upon Roland Arnall’s pledge.

    He also said the organization’s leaders would have sold the Pico Boulevard property on which the center was to be built if they knew the money was not forthcoming. The real estate market since went sour, the attorney said.

    According to Dawn Arnall, her husband never mentioned making such a pledge among the many they made as a couple to both Jewish and non-Jewish organizations.

    Read more at Contra Costa Times 


    Listen to the VINnews podcast on:

    iTunes | Spotify | Google Podcasts | Stitcher | Podbean | Amazon

    Follow VINnews for Breaking News Updates


    Connect with VINnews

    Join our WhatsApp group


    10 Comments
    Most Voted
    Newest Oldest
    Inline Feedbacks
    View all comments
    13 years ago

    According to the Uniform Commercial Code, any offer over the amount of $500.00 must be in writing. Otherwise, it is not legally binding or enforceable. Chadad did not have a legal leg to stand on.

    ProminantLawyer
    ProminantLawyer
    13 years ago

    i belive the prominant rabbi before i belive some window.

    Michel
    Michel
    13 years ago

    A pledge is only worth the paper its written on. In this case, no paper, no value. THe Gemara says in many places, thal a loan without paper is worthless. Whether really made or not, suing for it discourages all pledges. When a solicitor calls me for money and I say send an envelope and they try to tie me to a number, I hang up.

    Member
    13 years ago

    What gives the Chabad the honor to demand that they be given monies. A verbal comment that someone is to give to them is not a commitment and to build with such a promise seems outrageous.

    ProminantLawyer
    ProminantLawyer
    13 years ago

    #1 …wow. thanks for the law. i didnt know that gifts were covered by the Uniform Commercial Code. Good news for law-abiding piples.

    yeedle
    yeedle
    13 years ago

    As much as I respect chabad the case never made sense in the first place
    I also have people who promised me stuff verbally but when they were not for coming there is noting I could do

    Aryeh
    Aryeh
    13 years ago

    Re to #1 , a writing is not an issue except in the case when a party to the contract is in dispute. Moreover, telethon pledges over the phone have been deemed collectible even without a writing, as have high holiday aliyot when a writing is impossible.

    This case may actually stand a chance on appeal.

    AYONEMAN
    AYONEMAN
    13 years ago

    A pledge does NOT have to be in writing. But it has to be backed up by competent witnesses who heard the person make the pledge. In NY, the UJA and other jewish organizations have sued and are in lawsuits to enforce oral pledges; and this is while the pledgors are ALIVE. I have not seen the court’s ruling and the basis thereof, nor do I know the facts; but I would venture to guess that the Chabad problem was compounded by the fact that they were suing an estate, rather than the person while he was alive; it makes a big difference under the law, having to do with the “dead man’s statutes”, because the dead cannot talk or be cross-examined, etc.