In this New Jersey divorce trial, the wife sought to enforce the parties' "Mahr" agreement, a Muslim marriage contract entered into before marriage, under which husband promises wife a gift when the marriage is concluded. Upon receipt, a woman's Mahr automatically becomes her separate property. In this case, the wife sought enforcement of his obligation under the Mahr to pay her $50,000. While the Mahr has often been misconstrued by American courts as a prenuptial contract, Odatalla v. Odatalla recognized that a simple contract approach should be used to resolve a Mahr dispute. Unlike a prenuptial agreement, the Mahr is a simple contract that serves as a supplement, not a substitute, to other legal obligations between spouses. Therefore, Odatalla is the proper approach for judicial resolution of a Mahr. It is a simple contract, enforceable as long as the requirements of a valid contract are met. Here, those requirements have not been met : the amount of the payment was inequitable and defendant signed the agreement under duress, fearing that, if he did not do so, the marriage would not take place and he would be deported. Wife used husband's immigration status as both a sword and a shield. She also made unsupported allegations of abuse and cruelty against him, was not credible and was guilty of bad faith. This Mahr agreement is unenforceable. Attia v. Amin, New Jersey Ch. Div., June 12, 2006
The parties entered into a New Jersey prenuptial agreement. However, because it did not contain a monetary value for the assets listed, the New Jersey divorce judge held it was void as a matter of law. The parties then negotiated a New Jersey divorce agreement, which was placed on the record, with both testifying that they understood and voluntarily agreed to its terms. It was "clear" from the record that the ex-husband understood the terms of the agreement and he voluntarily agreed to them. Therefore, his appeal was dismissed as moot. Capawana v. Capawana, New Jersey App. Div., December 6, 2007
