IRMO Awatef and Nabil Dajani (1988)

1988: In re the Marriage of Awatef and Nabil Dajani [204 Cal.app.3d 1387]

Prenuptial agreements which facilitate divorce or separation by providing for a settlement only in the event of such an occurrence are void as against public policy.

i. FACTS: Jordanian marriage by proxy in 1982. Petition for dissolution by wife in 1985. The primary issue at trial wife’s dowry. Wife testified the marriage agreement called for a dowry of 3,000 Jordanian dinars, plus an additional 2,000 dinars in cash or household furniture. Husband claimed wife misrepresented the sum he would be obliged to pay if the marriage was dissolved.

ii. HOLD: “In this case, relying solely on evidence presented by wife, the Jordanian marriage contract must be considered as one designed to facilitate divorce: With the exception of the token payment of one Jordanian dinar (at the time of trial worth 33 cents), wife was not entitled to receive any of the agreed-upon sum unless the marriage was dissolved or husband died. The contract clearly provided for wife to profit by a divorce, and it cannot be enforced by a California court.” At 1389-1390

CITATION:
1. 2003: In re the MARRIAGE OF Donna J. and Albert R. BELLIO [105 Cal.App.4th 630]
2. 2001: In re MARRIAGE OF Ahmad and Sherifa SHABAN [88 Cal.App.4th 398]

Abbas Hadjian Esq
Dowry-Mahr Speaking:
A blog by Abbas Hadjian, AAML, IAFL, CFLS