Case Update (22 May 2023): Mahdavi v. Mahdavi; caution when settling a civil divorce suit when there may be a companion religious divorce needed
The Mahdavis civilly married in West Virginia in 1986, and then held a second, religious-based marriage ceremony at the Islamic Education Center in Washington, D.C. The parties agreed that this religious-based marriage included a provision, in their Islamic marriage contract, for a mahr of 100 gold coins to be paid by the Husband in the event of the divorce. In 2022, the parties obtained a civil divorce in West Virginia that incorporated a signed settlement agreement, negotiated with the help of counsel. In the agreement, there are a few salient points. It stated, "The Wife shall provide information and execute documents necessary to assist the Husband with obtaining an Iranian divorce." But, the agreement did not mention the 100 gold coin mahr, nor did it mention any waiver of the Wife's claim to the mahr. The Husband presented the Wife with a pre-printed form for her to fill out to request the "Iranian divorce," and, on the form, there was a space that said, "claim", and the Wife wrote "100 gold coins promised in my dowry." When the Husband filed for contempt of their MSA, arguing that the Wife was not cooperating in executing the documents needed for the Iranian divorce, the Wife argued that she never agreed in the MSA to forgo the mahr in the religious-based divorce. The MSA included the usual waivers, but nothing specifically related to the mahr, and no further language related to the religious-based divorce than what is quoted above. In the contempt proceeding, the trial judge found the wife in contempt, and ordered her to provide the required documents, including an execution of the pre-printed form "without any additions or claim inserted therein." The Wife appealed.
The West Virginia Intermediate Court of Appeals agreed with the Wife. "The express promise to provide information and execute documents necessary to assist Husband with obtaining an Iranian divorce does not automatically carry with it the obligation to waive claims associated with that religious-based divorce proceeding in the facts before us." Further, the Court noted that the form expressly contemplates that a claim may be asserted in the religious-based divorce, and the Husband made no attempt when he first provided the form to the Wife, to pre-fill that section to negate her claim. He further acknowledged that they had never discussed the mahr when they were negotiating their civil divorce MSA. Therefore, the Wife can seek whatever claims are available to her in the religious-based divorce, as she did not waive those in the civil divorce.