Ghassemi v. Ghassemi
2008 WL 4615857, 998 So. 2d 731 (2008)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A marriage that is valid in the state or country where it was contracted shall be treated as a valid marriage in Louisiana unless to do so would violate a strong public policy. A marriage between first cousins, while prohibited if contracted in Louisiana, does not violate a strong public policy and will be recognized if validly performed elsewhere.
Facts:
- In 1976, Tahereh Ghassemi and Hamid Ghassemi, who are first cousins, were married in Bam, Iran, where both were citizens.
- A son, Hamed, was born of their union in 1977.
- In 1977, Hamid Ghassemi entered the United States on a student visa.
- After arriving in the U.S., Hamid contracted a marriage with an American woman, which subsequently ended in divorce.
- In 1995, Hamid arranged for his son, Hamed, to enter the U.S.
- In 2002, Hamid married another woman in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, where he was domiciled.
- In 2005, Tahereh Ghassemi entered the U.S. as a permanent resident and settled in Baton Rouge.
Procedural Posture:
- Tahereh Ghassemi filed a petition for divorce, spousal support, and partition of community property against Hamid Ghassemi in the East Baton Rouge Parish Family Court (trial court).
- Hamid Ghassemi filed an exception of no cause of action, which the trial court overruled.
- The trial court granted Hamid's motion to stay discovery of his financial information pending a determination of the marriage's validity and awarded him attorney fees.
- Hamid filed a motion for a declaratory judgment, asking the court to rule that Louisiana had no obligation to recognize the Iranian marriage.
- The trial court held a trial on the motion for declaratory judgment and ruled in favor of Hamid, declining to recognize the marriage and dismissing Tahereh's petition with prejudice.
- Tahereh Ghassemi (appellant) appealed the final judgment and several interlocutory rulings to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit (intermediate appellate court).
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a marriage between first cousins, validly contracted in Iran, violate a strong public policy of Louisiana, thereby precluding its recognition under Louisiana Civil Code article 3520?
Opinions:
Majority - Kuhn, J.
No, a marriage between first cousins validly contracted in Iran does not violate a strong public policy of Louisiana. The controlling law is Louisiana Civil Code article 3520, which presumes a foreign marriage is valid if it was valid where contracted. The burden is on the challenger to prove that recognizing the marriage would violate a 'strong public policy' of Louisiana. The trial court erred by focusing on the doctrine of comity and U.S.-Iran diplomatic relations, which are irrelevant. While Louisiana law prohibits the solemnization of first-cousin marriages within the state, this prohibition does not rise to the level of a strong public policy that would invalidate a foreign one. The court reasoned that Louisiana has a history of recognizing other types of foreign marriages prohibited locally (like common-law marriage), historically permitted first-cousin marriage, and does not criminalize relations between first cousins under its incest statute. Therefore, the Iranian marriage is entitled to recognition.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the high threshold for invoking the 'strong public policy' exception under Louisiana's conflict of laws rules for marriage. It establishes a key precedent that a state's prohibition on contracting a certain type of marriage does not, by itself, constitute a strong public policy against recognizing such a marriage if validly performed elsewhere. The ruling strongly affirms Louisiana's policy of 'favor matrimonii' (favoring the validity of marriages) and distinguishes between fundamental moral prohibitions and lesser impediments. This case will guide future Louisiana courts to uphold foreign marriages unless they contravene the most deeply held, explicit public policies, such as the prohibition on same-sex marriage expressly codified in the statute.
