Dowry

[Mike Alemie]

Hello There,
I have some questions regarding the "dowry" that is a common religious belief as an antenuptial between the couples in some countries. The law is obscure and vague about this matter, I was not able to find a reliable and updated source.

1- Is the dowry agreement considered legal by the California and federal superior/supreme court?
2- How the law, in general, translate the dowry? (Some people say it would translate as a legal debt to your ex-wife after filling for the separation some says its a debt to your wife whenever she requests others say CA court would consider it no enforcement - no legal obligation).
3- How does California law consider dowry cases at the time of separation?
4- Does the initiator for a separation process matter in case of giving or, receiving the dowry? How is it in case of fraud or betrayal?

I appreciate your responses beforehand.

Regards,
Mehrdad

 

[PayrollHRGuy]

Doesn't seem that the California courts will enforce it.
Read through this.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-law-and-religion/article/student-note-religious-marriage-contracts-judicial-enforcement-of-mahr-agreements-in-american-courts/EA885E22620BF06738D837655376B6B2

 

[Taxing Matters]

Family law, and particularly divorce law, are matters of state law and thus there is no federal involvement here as there is no U.S. Constitutional limitation on dowry. The dowry is a form of premarital agreement and would be analyzed under state law as any other premarital agreement. In California, the case law has been that such agreements, if in writing, are enforceable to the extent that the agreement does not act to encourage the dissolution of the marriage. The California appeals courts appear split, however, on just how significant the dowry must be to result in encouraging the dissolution of marriage. If the agreement is not in writing it may run into problems with the statute of frauds. At least one husband seeking to enforce a dowry lost because of that reason.

Doesn't seem that the California courts will enforce it.

Actually, the California courts do enforce some of them. I've read California cases of husbands who succeeded in doing just that, but not all of the agreements are enforced. The details of the agreement and the financial circumstances of the spouses matter.

 

[PayrollHRGuy]

Actually, the California courts do enforce some of them. I've read California cases of husbands who succeeded in doing just that, but not all of the agreements are enforced. The details of the agreement and the financial circumstances of the spouses matter.

Assuming the dowry is religion-based how is that possibly constitutional? Not arguing, honestly asking.

 

[Zigner]

Assuming the dowry is religion-based how is that possibly constitutional? Not arguing, honestly asking.

Because it's reduced to a contractual matter.

 

[Mike Alemie]

Assuming the dowry is religion-based how is that possibly constitutional? Not arguing, honestly asking.

Initially thank you for your responses.
Well, to be honest, this is what I got a headache of. It seems years ago some people defined it to the benefit of themselves and have forced it on the people as well and it has become a traditional/contractual rule!
I personally don't assume it wise and fair but the law should end it once and forever!

 

[Zigner]

Initially thank you for your responses.
Well, to be honest, this is what I got a headache of. It seems years ago some people defined it to the benefit of themselves and force it on the people as well and it has become a traditional rule!
I personally don't assume it wise and fair but the law should end it once and forever!

Huh? What is your specific situation that gives rise to your concern?

 

[stealth2]

Initially thank you for your responses.
Well, to be honest, this is what I got a headache of. It seems years ago some people defined it to the benefit of themselves and have forced it on the people as well and it has become a traditional/contractual rule!
I personally don't assume it wise and fair but the law should end it once and forever!

It's a bit more historically complex than that...

 

[Mike Alemie]

Huh? What is your specific situation that gives rise to your concern?

Dowry's definition is different in countries or even between the tribes within a country.
For example, Persians believe are different than Saudi Arabia or Egypt or India. Persians believe it first as a religion/traditional way of marriage whilst nowadays they believe it not only as that but also as a financial fortifier of a marriage! So it means higher dowry will hinder a man from an easy separation! Also, it is very dangerous as the bride has a right to request it right after the marriage (in Iran) unless she waives it till any probable separation! (the dowry in Persia mostly is based on the real 21+ carrot of gold coin)!!
So, this dowry will give the power to the bride over the groom!
Nowadays especially in the USA, some of the (Persian-heritage) brides are taking advantage of such this pre-agreement because the US courts are not very well aware of what actually dowry means in Persia and under what religious/legal circumstances it is applicable. So, the bride could charge the groom in the home country as well as in the US! On top of it, the US law says the properties should be split as well without decreasing the paid dowry!
So it is a very vast and wide subject to discuss here.
But, I believe the US court system has to deny it fully as they don't have enough knowledge and dominance over this subject or, put some clear and limited strict guidelines that make them able to understand to apply it!

 

[Zigner]

Dowry's definition is different in countries or even between the tribes within a country.
For example, Persians believe are different than Saudi Arabia or Egypt or India. Persians believe it first as a religion/traditional way of marriage whilst nowadays they believe it not only as that but also as a financial fortifier of a marriage! So it means higher dowry will hinder a man from an easy separation! Also, it is very dangerous as the bride has a right to request it right after the marriage (in Iran) unless she waives it till any probable separation! (the dowry in Persia mostly is based on the real 21+ carrot of gold coin)!!
So, this dowry will give the power to the bride over the groom!
Nowadays especially in the USA, some of the (Persian-heritage) brides are taking advantage of such this pre-agreement because the US courts are not very well aware of what actually dowry means in Persia and under what religious/legal circumstances it is applicable. So, the bride could charge the groom in the home country as well as in the US! On top of it, the US law says the properties should be split as well without decreasing the paid dowry!
So it is a very vast and wide subject to discuss here.
But, I believe the US court system has to deny it fully as they don't have enough knowledge and dominance over this subject or, put some clear and limited strict guidelines for applying that!

This is not a discussion forum. This is a forum designed to help people who have real problems.

 

[stealth2]

So, this dowry will give the power to the bride over the groom!

Well, this is horrible!

 

[Taxing Matters]

Assuming the dowry is religion-based how is that possibly constitutional? Not arguing, honestly asking.

The concept of dowry is not restricted to any one religion or one specific country or even region in the world. But even though some dowry practices are based in religion does not raise a constitutional problem. Much of marriage is rooted in religious beliefs, after all. Remember, the first amendment does three things with respect to religion. First it prohibits the government from designating any religion as the state or national religion. Thus the U.S. broke from the rule in England that mandates the Church of England as the national religion. Second, it prohibits the government from discriminating on the basis of religion. Thus, the government cannot make rules that benefit (or sanction) one religion over another. Third it prohibits the government from interfering with the religious practices of individuals, at least so long as those practices do not harm others. The focus, being, in all cases on limitations on government action that impacts religion.

What the first amendment does not do is prohibit individuals from practicing their religion as they please (and indeed guarantees them that right) so long as they do not hurt others in the process. So there no prohibition on the practice of dowry and were the government to ban it that would raise a first amendment issue. The practice of dowry amounts to a contract, and contracts are enforceable if all the requirements of a contract are there. The fact that a religious practice may be the motivation for the contract is not relevant and certainly cannot be a basis for the courts to refuse to enforce it. Were a court to do that, it would be interfering with the right of the spouses to practice their religion and may be discriminating against those religions that have dowry as part of their beliefs.

 

[Taxing Matters]

But, I believe the US court system has to deny it fully as they don't have enough knowledge and dominance over this subject or, put some clear and limited strict guidelines that make them able to understand to apply it!

Dowry as practiced by most cultures is traditionally property given by the woman as an inducement for the man to marry her. In divorce proceeding, generally it is the man seeking the enforcement of the dowry contract, so it is not the woman benefiting from it, but the man. In any event, there is no reason for the courts in the U.S. to deny dowry contracts or refuse to enforce them. The U.S. courts will apply U.S. contract principles to determine the outcome. There is nothing that unique about dowry that a U.S. court cannot understand the agreement and determine the outcome based on U.S. legal principles.

I'm going to guess that you are in a situation in which dowry is an issue. Care to explain what that situation is and why you think the dowry agreement should not be respected?

 

[cbg]

As a part of my job I see marriage certificates from all over the world on a regular basis. The Iranian marriage cert, and at least one other Middle Eastern country but I can't offhand recall which one, spells out the dowry and the terms under which both parties are able to call for a divorce.

But I am unaware of any situations where a US court has enforced one. I'm not saying there are none, but divorce decrees go past my desk as well and I can say with certainty that none of our foreign-born employees (of which there are thousands) ever provided us with a decree in which a dowry was enforced.

 

[Mike Alemie]

Dowry as practiced by most cultures is traditionally property given by the woman as an inducement for the man to marry her. In divorce proceeding, generally it is the man seeking the enforcement of the dowry contract, so it is not the woman benefiting from it, but the man. In any event, there is no reason for the courts in the U.S. to deny dowry contracts or refuse to enforce them. The U.S. courts will apply U.S. contract principles to determine the outcome. There is nothing that unique about dowry that a U.S. court cannot understand the agreement and determine the outcome based on U.S. legal principles.

I'm going to guess that you are in a situation in which dowry is an issue. Care to explain what that situation is and why you think the dowry agreement should not be respected?

So, my issues are:
1- I bought a home in CA, 3 years before my marriage. Now, my ex-wife has started the community property discussion about that home. I have to add during the first year of our marriage, she was unemployed and I was paying everything. During the next years, I have kept continuing paying the home mortgage entirely from my bank account (not a joint account).
I also helped her financially to establish her own business from the savings that I collected after the marriage during that one year that she was unemployed!

2- She also has asked for her dowry by showing the court the translation of our pre-agreement. So, it seems I have to pay her dowry on top of the other things (splitting in half) is that right?

Obviously I have contributed more than her! Split on half is not fair to me! So I am wondering how the CA court would decide for splitting our properties?