Obaidi v. Qayoum
154 Wash. App. 609 (2010)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A mahr, or Islamic prenuptial agreement, is evaluated under neutral principles of contract law and is unenforceable if it lacks mutual assent, particularly when one party did not understand the language, terms, or legal implications of the document at the time of signing.
Facts:
- Husna Obaidi and Khalid Qayoum, both children of Afghan immigrants, decided to marry according to Afghan customs.
- On December 29, 2005, during a religious engagement ceremony known as a Nikkah, they were presented with a 'mahr' agreement.
- The mahr was written in Farsi, a language Mr. Qayoum does not speak, read, or write.
- Mr. Qayoum was unaware of the mahr or its terms until approximately 15 minutes before he was asked to sign it.
- The agreement stipulated a 'long term marriage portion' of $20,000, which Ms. Obaidi asserted was payable to her upon divorce.
- The negotiations and ceremony were conducted in Farsi, and Mr. Qayoum's uncle explained the mahr's meaning to him only after he had signed the document.
- The couple solemnized their marriage civilly in November 2006 and separated approximately 13 months later.
Procedural Posture:
- Husna Obaidi filed a petition for dissolution of marriage against Khalid Qayoum in King County Superior Court, a trial court.
- The case was transferred to Whitman County Superior Court.
- After a trial, the Superior Court entered a judgment enforcing the mahr, ordering Mr. Qayoum to pay Ms. Obaidi $20,000.
- The trial court also awarded Ms. Obaidi $8,250 in attorney fees.
- Mr. Qayoum (appellant) appealed the trial court's decision to the Washington Court of Appeals, with Ms. Obaidi as the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a mahr agreement an enforceable contract under Washington state law when one party does not speak or read the language it is written in, was not aware of its existence until minutes before signing, and was only informed of its terms after it was executed?
Opinions:
Majority - Kulik, C.J.
No. A mahr agreement is not an enforceable contract if there was no mutual assent, or 'meeting of the minds,' on its essential terms. Courts must analyze such religious agreements using neutral principles of contract law, not religious doctrine. A valid contract requires offer, acceptance, consideration, and mutual assent. In this case, there was no mutual assent because Mr. Qayoum did not understand the document he was signing. The evidence showed he could not read, write, or speak Farsi, the language of the mahr; he was unaware of the agreement until minutes before signing; and its terms were explained to him only after execution. Furthermore, the written document itself was vague, lacking essential terms such as when or under what conditions the $20,000 would be paid. The trial court also erred by considering Islamic law and fault, which are contrary to Washington's no-fault divorce principles.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies that religious prenuptial agreements are not given special status and must satisfy the secular requirements of state contract law to be enforceable in U.S. courts. It establishes that a 'meeting of the minds' is a critical, fact-intensive inquiry, and factors like language barriers or lack of opportunity for review can invalidate an agreement for lack of mutual assent. The ruling reinforces the 'neutral principles of law' doctrine, allowing courts to adjudicate disputes involving religious documents by focusing on generally applicable legal rules without entangling themselves in religious interpretation. This precedent guides lower courts to scrutinize the formation of such contracts carefully, protecting individuals from being bound by agreements they did not truly understand or voluntarily enter into.
Unlock the full brief for Obaidi v. Qayoum