Los Angeles, CA – Chabad of California Inc. has lost its latest bid to overturn a lower court ruling in a case involving an alleged pledge of $18 million by a deceased California philanthropist.
Subscribe to our Daily Roundup Email
JewishJournal.com (http://bit.ly/14Y4KZA) is reporting that the unanimous Jan. 25 ruling by the Second District Court of Appeals all but ends this lengthy dispute.
According to Chabad, Roland Arnall, founder of the subprime lender Ameriquest Mortgage, entered into an oral agreement in 2004 to donate $18 million to Chabad for the construction of an educational facility near Chabad’s headquarters.
Arnall made three separate payments of $180,000 each to Chabad before dying of cancer in March of 2008. Attempts by Chabad to collect the balance from Arnall’s estate were contested by Arnall’s widow, claiming the previous payments were not part of any valid pledge.
Chabad lost at a 2011 trial, with a California Superior Court Judge saying that the group had “failed to prove by a preponderance of evidence” that a pledge by Arnall had been made.
Only the California Supreme Court can now overturn the ruling.
These guys seem to know no bounds in trying to grab money from someone who is niftar. The Estate has won two court decisions affirming there is no valid pledge. Hopefully, chabad will find someone else to chase for more donations.
I agree that Chabad is being greedy; the man is deceased, and according to the Uniform Commercial Code, there was no valid contract entered into, pertaining to the pledge, as it was not in writing. Therefore, Chabad, should drop this matter. If not, the widow of the philanthropist could sue Chabad for intentional infliction of mental trauma, and harassment.
#1 or get a job how about that
To anonymous comment number one: you are talking like a person that is sick in the head with no sensitivity, Chabad has a budget that is way more than u can even imagine and your saying that they are sick people BC someone pledged to them 18 million please think before you speak.
To Mr. Anonymous, I sense that you are angry at Chabad, Please use this forum to tell your personal story. I also sense that you are also sitting in the basement of your mother’s house in yuour underwear and white socks wondering what has become of your sorry excuse for an existence. Don’t be a loser, throw on some pants, go to the mikvah, it’s erev shabbos and learn some mishne brurah.
Disclaimer: i am a lubavitcher, but not involved in fund raising.
Lets say that the claim of the fundraiser is correct and the man did pledge to donate. Then after going to olam haemes, he is asked why he didn’t keep the pledge?
I am not aware of the details in this case, but i hope that his family aren’t doing his neshama a misservice.
Good shabbos!
A pledge to a building fund is enforceable (Or so I was told 30 years ago in my business law class). But an oral contract is not worth the paper it is printed on.
Really, if a guy promised you a large sum, wouldn’t you make sure this promise was done in the proper form?
One would think someone at chabad would have had the common sense to send a letter acknowledging the gift, and that it would be paid over installments. Then, after each installment, a note doing the same. And keep a copy of each one sent.
Basic, common sense. But not so common for chabad.
Anyone that went to Law School even a Bar Bey Rav Devhad Yoma, knows that US law is, that an oral agreement is enforceable.
The only reason there is any difficulty in this case is proving the oral agreement was made. If the had witnesses or a tape recording all the courts would uphold it without question.
Every appeal and pledge in every shull on Shabbos and Yom Tov, where people pledge, very large sums of money, IS enforceable.
Every single agreement in the 47 st diamond district is done, 99% of the time, orally only and with a hand shake, alone and is enforceable.
People who have given hundreds of thousands of dollars in the past (as in this case) do so based on Good Will and a very good relationship and close friendship and TRUST, very similar to the type of trust of a handshake on 47 st. and therefore that relationship and trust would be broken, hindered and undermined if the donor is asked “sign on the doted line”, where is natural reaction is likely to be”
“What’s the matter? You don’t trust me???
…. I am giving you millions, on my own free will and out of the goodness of my heart and you can’t trust me and you want to pressure me to SIGN a paper???”
Is is Chabad or Cunin that is greedy? He has done amazing things but sometimes he goes too far in his zealousness.
To #15 - According to the Uniform Commercial Code, an oral contract is not binding for amounts over $500.00. The Uniform Commercial Code is recognized in all 50 states. Therefore, the Chabad does not have a legal leg to stand on.
To nos. 15 and 17, an oral promise is legally binding, even for over $500 (the UCC requirement is limited to a contract for the sale of goods). There are two issues at hand. First of all, was there consideration furnished in exchange for the promise? If not, the promise is not enforceable. Second, was the promise even made? It would appear that as a matter of fact, the courts have decided that no promise was made. As to the consideration, I can’t say. At one time, charitable organizations were very reluctant to enforce promises to contribute, because they gave the organization a bad name and discouraged others from dealing with them. That is not as true as it once was.
I think we all must be aware of two basic Halachik principles. The first 1 is actually found in this week’s parsha and entails the obligation to assert any claims we have against our fellow Jew in a Beis Din an NOT in a secular court. It is an issue D’Oraysa to go to Erkaos!
How Chabad…or any other Jewish organization can violate this fundamental principle is beyond me.
Even assuming they had a heter…that they tried and the other party refused…
we have another rule of ‘ Hamotzi MeChaveiro Alav Harayah’….which means that no money can be removed from the hand of the defending party unless there is proof positive that he owes the money.
So it seems that given the facts presented… not only does the family not owe…but Chabad maybe violating 1 serious prohibition and ignoring another fundamental Halachik principle.
Once again Sinas chinom takes charge on VIN.
It was the courts job to decide if Chabad has enough proof that a pledge was made.
If this was pure greed as many of you called it,or they didn’t have a leg to stand on, then the courts would have thrown this out long ago, and wouldn’t have made it this far.
I am sure if the court awarded Chabad the pledge the same detractors would be on here spewing their Sinas chinom anyway.
For the chillul Hashem crowd which is often the same crowd as the Sinas chinom group , you couldn’t care less about chillul or kiddush you just enjoy knocking certain groups Chabad included.
If your organization was promised 18 million would you really not do what’s in your legal rights to get what you know in fact is yours and not the estates? Or would you say you know what ” even though we are owed 18 million if we lose the court case it may be a chillul Hashem so you know what I will just drop it”
You are out of your Sinas chinom mind