A

ABDULLAH v. SARSOUR
2006 WL 1134034 (Va. Cir. Ct. 2006)

FACTS
The parties were married on January 30, 2000 in the state of Virginia according to Islamic Law and executed an Islamic Marriage Contract. As part of the divorce litigation, the wife sought enforcement of the Contract. It provided that upon the marriage the husband pay an immediate dower of $10,000 and the wife’s undergraduate expenses up to $15,000 as they became due. The husband argued that the document was void for vagueness because the term “later” was used to designate the time of performance of the dower. Additionally, he argued that the Contract was void for failure of consideration because the wife failed to remain in the marriage as required under Islamic customs.

ISSUE
Whether the Marriage Contract is enforceable where the term “later” was used to designate the time of performance of the dower and the wife failed to remain in the marriage as required under Islamic customs.

RULING
The court ruled in favor of the defendant. The court held that the Contract was not void for vagueness, explaining that “where an agreement is to pay money and no time is specified, it is interpreted as being an agreement to pay the same on demand; and if it is an agreement to do something other than to pay money, it is interpreted as a promise to do it in a reasonable time.” Thus, the term “later” as used to designate the time of performance of the dower would be interpreted as requiring payment on demand. Accordingly, the court directed the husband to pay the $10,000 dowry as requested.

Additionally, the court rejected the husband’s argument that the Contract was void for failure of consideration. The court noted that the Contract was fully integrated, as it set forth the offer to marry and pay the two obligations and the acceptance of the offer and the proposed dowry. Therefore, the court was not required to consider additional terms such as Islamic customs. Accordingly, the court directed the husband to pay a portion of the wife’s undergraduate expenses actually incurred.

Abouzahr v. Zouzahr, 361 N.J. Super 135 (App. Div. 2003)

Afghani v. Ghafoorian, 2010 WL 1189383 (Va.App.)

Aghili v. Saadatnejadi, 958 S.W.2d 784 (Tenn.App.,1997)

Ahmed v. Ahmed, 261 S.W.3d 190 (2008)

Akileh v. Elchahal, 666 So.2d 246 (Fla.App.2 Dist., 1996)

Ali v. Ali, 279 N.J. Super. 154 (Ch. Div. 1994)

Alkhafaji v. TIAA-CREF, 2010 WL 1435056 (Pa.Com.Pl.2010)

Aqel v. Aqel, 2005 WL 564191 (Ky. App. 2005)

Aziz v. Aziz, 127 Misc.2d 1013, 488 N.Y.S.2d 123 (1985)

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s