## Facts

- Husna Obaidi (26, Canadian citizen) and Khalid Qayoum (19, U.S. citizen in Washington) were children of Afghan immigrants.
- Shortly before a December 2005 Nikkah (religious engagement ceremony), Qayoum learned he was to participate, with roughly 15 minutes’ notice.
- During the ceremony, the parties entered a written mahr in Farsi requiring Qayoum to pay Obaidi $20,000 if they divorced.
- Qayoum could not read, write, or speak Farsi; negotiations and the ceremony were conducted largely in Farsi, and he designated his uncle to negotiate for him.
- Qayoum had not heard of a mahr before the ceremony; his uncle explained the mahr terms after Qayoum signed.
- The parties later held Muslim and civil wedding ceremonies, lived together for about a year, and then separated.
- Obaidi filed for dissolution in Washington and sought enforcement of the mahr as a premarital financial obligation.
- The trial court treated the mahr as an enforceable prenuptial agreement and ordered Qayoum to pay $20,000; Qayoum appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the mahr was enforceable as a premarital agreement under Washington law, including requirements of voluntariness, informed consent, and adequate disclosure.
2. Whether enforcing the mahr in the dissolution proceeding would violate Washington public policy where the agreement was executed under significant procedural deficiencies.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals reversed the order enforcing the mahr.
- The court treated the mahr as a premarital agreement subject to Washington’s secular enforceability standards rather than as a religious obligation enforced on its own terms.
- The court held the mahr unenforceable because the circumstances showed a lack of meaningful understanding and voluntariness at execution, including language barriers and extreme time pressure.
- The court also relied on the absence of independent legal advice and the lack of evidence of full financial disclosure.

## Legal Principles

- A premarital agreement is enforceable in Washington only if it is procedurally fair (including voluntariness, meaningful opportunity for informed consent, independent advice, and full disclosure) and not substantively unfair under the governing test.
- Courts may apply neutral principles of law to obligations contained in religiously motivated marital contracts, but enforcement depends on compliance with ordinary state contract and family-law requirements.
- Where an agreement is executed without meaningful understanding, adequate time to consider consequences, independent counsel, or financial disclosure, it fails Washington’s standards for premarital agreements and will not be enforced in dissolution.

## Conclusion

The court declined to enforce the $20,000 mahr provision in the dissolution because, analyzed as a premarital agreement, it was not entered knowingly and voluntarily and lacked the procedural safeguards Washington requires for enforceable premarital contracts.


In re Marriage of Obaidi & Qayoum, 154 Wash. App. 609, 226 P.3d 787 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010)