MK Family Law

The Kentucky Supreme Court addressed a Husband's request for a writ of mandamus to compel his family court judge, Judge Hagerty, to dismiss his Wife's petition for a divorce because he had already secured a divorce in Jordan.   For purposes of this blog, I am going to skip over the merits of the writ of mandamus arguments and whether Husband was entitled to one (note: he was not).  I do want to discuss the basic tenets of these simultaneous (or proximate) divorce proceedings in the U.S. and overseas.   In the case of Iqtaifan v. Hagerty , the court elaborated on the following facts.  Mr. Iqtaifan met his Wife and married her in Jordan in 2005.  They then moved to Kentucky, where they resided for the entirety of their marriage, and where both of their children were born.  In July 2017, the parties traveled to Jordan to visit family, and it was apparently during this timeframe where Mr. Iqtaifan pronounced talaq and commenced Jordanian divorce proce...

On February 4, 2021, the Maryland Court of Special Appeals, in the unreported opinion of Chaudry v. Chaudry , affirmed that a mehr signed by the parties at the time of their marriage was not an enforceable contract.   The parties married in an Islamic marriage ceremony in 2004 in Virginia.  At the time, the parties signed a mehr .  After a tumultuous marriage, in 2018, the Wife filed a Complaint for Absolute Divorce.  The Husband countered.  At the conclusion of the trial, the court, among other things, ordered the Husband to pay the Wife a marital award in excess of $279,000.  The Husband contends that the trial judge should have enforced the provisions in the mehr , which he says would have required him to pay to his Wife the sum of $10,000 in lieu of equitably dividing their marital property.   The Maryland courts addressed the issue of a mehr in 2020 in the Nouri case .  The Nouri court elaborated on the basic understanding of a me...

Maryland's Court of Special Appeals (its intermediate appellate court) issued an opinion on April 7, 2020 that addressed the issue of the enforceability of Islamic marriage contracts in two separate, yet consolidated, cases. Nouri v. Dadgar  and Ghazirad v. Mojarrad set forth the premise that mahr ( a provision in an Islamic marriage contract for a husband to pay a wife a sum of money ) is not per se unenforceable.  In fact, if the contract can be interpreted based on neutral contract principles, and does not touch upon ecclesiastical law, the court can address the contract's enforceability.  The court, however, went a step farther and set a higher standard for these particular marriage contracts because they are entered into between two individuals in a confidential relationship.  On that basis, the enforceability of the contract should involve a more stringent standard such as that which would apply in the situation of a premarital agreement and look to whether ...