Odatalla v. Odatalla

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:

1. The separation of Church and State doctrine of the First Amendment precludes the court from reviewing the mahr agreement, and
2. 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:

1. The agreement is enforceable based on neutral principles of law, and
2. 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.

Rahman v. Hossain

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.

Zawahiri v. Alwattar

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:

1. The Establishment Clause of the Ohio Constitution, and
2. 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.