by user | Apr 26, 2022 | Uncategorized
The court awarded Wife assets in accordance to California community property law where the Husband could not prove the existence of a prenuptial agreement apart from the testimony of an Islamic Law expert.
In re Marriage of Shaban, 88 Cal. App. 4th 398; 105 Cal. Rptr. 2d 863 (2001) Court: Court of Appeal of California, 4th Appellate District, Division 3
The court awarded Wife assets in accordance to California community property law where the Husband could not prove the existence of a prenuptial agreement apart from the testimony of an Islamic Law expert. Husband and Wife were married in Egypt in 1974. After living in the U.S. for 17 years, the couple filed for divorce. During the divorce proceedings, the Husband claimed that the couple had a written prenuptial agreement and produced a one-page piece of paper written in Arabic and signed at the time of the wedding by the Husband and the Wife’s father. The Husband wanted to have an expert testify that the paper stated the Husband and Wife’s intent to be governed by Islamic Law in marriage and divorce, including property relations. The Husband argued that the Wife would then have no right to the Husband’s medical practice or retirement accounts. The trial court refused to allow the expert to testify. Also, the trial court found that the document was really a marriage certificate and not a prenuptial agreement. The property was then ordered to be divided according to California community property law. The court also ordered Husband to provide the Wife with her attorney fees for future appeals by the Husband.
Husband appealed the trial court’s decision. On appeal, the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s decision and held that because the Statute of Frauds applied to prenuptial agreements, parole evidence of the expert’s testimony was properly excluded. The court also found that the language in the document did not clearly state the parties’ desire to have their marriage and divorce governed by Islamic Law and so was too vague to satisfy the Statute of Frauds. The court takes notice of ambiguity of the term “Islamic Law” given the various schools of interpretations that exist within Islamic Law. The appellate court also affirmed the award to the Wife for attorney fees.
Note: Request for rehearing and review was denied by the Appellate Court and the Supreme Court of California.
by user | Apr 26, 2022 | Uncategorized
The court, in favor of the wife, held a mahr agreement enforceable where it was enforceable based on contracts law and met the state’s standards for contracts.
Odatalla v. Odatalla, 355 N.J. Super. 305; 810 A.2d 93 (Ch. Div. 2002)Court: Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Passaic County.
The court, in favor of the wife, held a mahr agreement enforceable where it was enforceable based on contracts law and met the state’s standards for contracts.
Husband and Wife were married in New Jersey in a religious ceremony. As part of the marriage ceremony, the couple signed a mahr agreement. The mahr provided for a postponed payment of $10,000. The ceremony and the mahr negotiations were videotaped. During divorce proceedings, the Wife sought to have the mahr enforced by the court. The Husband argued two reasons why the mahr should be not enforced:
- The separation of Church and State doctrine of the First Amendment precludes the court from reviewing the mahr agreement, and
- The mahr is not a valid contract under New Jersey law.
The court disagreed with the Husband on both counts. Even though it was a part of a religious ceremony, a mahr agreement can be enforced if:
- The agreement is enforceable based on neutral principles of law, and
- The agreement meets the state’s standards for the neutral principles of law.
For the first prong, the court, citing the “neutral principles of law” doctrine in the Supreme Court case Jones v. Wolf, 443 U.S. 595 (1979), stated that if court can decide the issue of the mahr on neutral principles of law and not religious beliefs or policies, then there are no First Amendment violations. In response to the Husband’s second argument, the court looked to New Jersey contract law. While the Husband argued that the mahr was too vague because the term “postponed” did not define when the money would be due, the court found that the mahr agreement contained all the essential elements of a contract. The court also stated that the mahr was a contract between two consenting adults and not against public policy.
Note: Cited in New Jersey case, Rahman v. Hossain, 2010 N.J.Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1326 (2010), for background information on mahr agreements under Islamic customs.
Note: Cited in Washington case, In re Marriage of Obaidi, 226 P.3d 787 at 790 (2010), in support of the neutral principles of law approach in deciding on an issue over a mahr agreement.
by user | Apr 26, 2022 | Uncategorized
العربية( حكمت المحكمة لصالح الزوج بأن ترد الزوجة جزء المهر / الصداق المدفوع مقدما، واعتمدت المحكمة على شهادة شاهد العدل الذي أحضره الزوج)
.بأن الصداق يمكن رده في الحاالت التي تكون فيها الزوجة مخطئة في طلب الطالق
Rahman v. Hossain 2010
العربية( حكمت المحكمة لصالح الزوج بأن ترد الزوجة جزء المهر / الصداق المدفوع مقدما، واعتمدت المحكمة على شهادة شاهد العدل الذي أحضره الزوج)
.بأن الصداق يمكن رده في الحاالت التي تكون فيها الزوجة مخطئة في طلب الطالق
The court, in favor of Husband, ordered wife to return the immediate paid portion of the mahr/sadaq.
The Court order the $12,500 initial payment of sadaq to be returned to Husband following the dissolution of their marriage. Based on the evidence, the Court held that Wife was at fault in the divorce because Husband did not know that Wife suffered from a mental illness until after their marriage. It was not just the simple diagnosis but the behavior of Wife after the marriage including refusal to work, engage in marital relations and improper use of antidepressants. Wife also left Husband and moved to another state. The Court found that based on Islamic law and customs if Wife was found to be at fault in the divorce the sadaq was returnable to Husband.
by user | Apr 26, 2022 | Uncategorized
The Court invalided a mahr agreement where the Husband entered into the agreement under coercion.
Zawahiri v. Alwattar, 2008 Ohio 3473 (2008) Court: Court of Appeals of Ohio, 10th Appellate District, Franklin County
Husband and Wife were married in Ohio. Two hours before the Islamic marriage ceremony, the Husband was presented with the preprinted marriage contract with the amount of “mahr” (dowry) left blank. The mahr was decided on $25,000 postponed amount. A year later, the couple filed for divorce. The Wife argued that the marriage contract was a valid prenuptial agreement. The Husband argued that enforcement of the mahr provision would violate the Establishment Clause of the U.S. and Ohio Constitutions, and in the alternative that it did not satisfy the conditions for a necessary for a valid prenuptial agreement. The trial court found for the Husband and refused to enforce the mahr provision on two grounds:
- The Establishment Clause of the Ohio Constitution, and
- The circumstances under which the couple entered the contract rendered it invalid and unenforceable as a prenuptial agreement.
The Wife appealed the trial court’s decision. On appeal, the appellate court affirmed the lower court’s ruling that the contract was an invalid prenuptial agreement because the Husband entered into it under circumstances of stress and coercion. The Wife argued that the marriage contract should have been analyzed as a general contract and not as a prenuptial agreement. In response, the court stated that the Wife waived this argument by failing to bring it up before the trial court. There was no extraordinary reason to exempt her because she was requesting a ruling from the appellate court (the contract is an invalid prenuptial agreement) that was contrary to the ruling she had requested from the trial court (the contract is a valid prenuptial agreement). The court also dismissed the Wife claim that the trial court violated her equal protection rights.
History: The case was appeal and review was denied by the Supreme Court of Ohio.
