Public Policy vs. Mahr

Courts may debate Mahr’s compatibility with state law, but they cannot avoid explaining themselves. Public policy requires reasons, not silence.

In Shabanian v. Hosseini, No. W2024-00886-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 13, 2025), the Tennessee Court of Appeals addressed whether a deferred dowry (Mahr) agreement could be enforced in the United States. The parties married in Iran in 2006. Their marriage contract obligated the husband to pay his wife 500 Full Bahar Azadi gold coins upon her demand. When the wife sought enforcement in 2021, the value of the coins was estimated at $265,800 in U.S. dollars.

In his response, the husband admitted signing the marriage contract but denied its enforceability in Tennessee, claiming—without explanation—that it violated public policy. The trial court agreed, holding that the agreement was unenforceable either as a prenuptial agreement or as a contract. No factual or legal basis was provided.

The Appellate Court’s Decision

On appeal, the wife argued that the trial court failed to comply with Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 52.01, which requires judges to state specific findings of fact and conclusions of law to support their rulings.¹ The Court of Appeals agreed.

The panel emphasized that meaningful review is impossible when the trial court does not explain its reasoning. Without findings on whether the Mahr agreement was valid, enforceable, or contrary to public policy, the appellate court had no basis to affirm or reject the decision. Accordingly, it vacated the divorce decree and remanded the case for further proceedings, directing the trial court to reopen proof, conduct an evidentiary hearing, and issue a new ruling expressly addressing enforceability.²

Why This Case Matters

1. Procedural Compliance Matters
   Even if the trial court’s conclusion might have been correct, a judgment lacking specific findings is legally insufficient. Appellate courts require a transparent record to evaluate whether justice has been done.³
2. Public Policy Is Not a Shortcut

   Declaring a contract “against public policy” is not enough. Courts must explain why enforcement would offend state law or public norms. Otherwise, the phrase becomes a shield for unexplained judicial discretion.

California Comparisons

Tennessee’s insistence on explicit reasoning resonates with California precedent, where appellate courts have grappled with whether Mahr agreements are enforceable as prenuptial contracts, simple contracts, or void promises:

• In re Marriage of Noghrey, 169 Cal. App. 3d 326, 215 Cal. Rptr. 153 (Cal. Ct. App. 1985): The court invalidated a premarital contract as contrary to public policy under the circumstances.

• In re Marriage of Dajani, 204 Cal. App. 3d 1387, 251 Cal. Rptr. 871 (Cal. Ct. App. 1988): The court rejected enforcement of a Mahr where the payment was triggered by divorce, viewing it as promoting dissolution and against public policy.

• In re Marriage of Shaban, 88 Cal. App. 4th 398, 105 Cal. Rptr. 2d 863 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001): The court declined enforcement of a vague Egyptian marriage contract, holding it insufficiently definite under California’s statute of frauds.

East Coast Approaches

Other states have taken a more pragmatic contract-law approach:



• Odatalla v. Odatalla, 810 A.2d 93 (N.J. Super. Ct. Ch. Div. 2002): New Jersey enforced a Mahr agreement ($10,000) as a valid simple contract, holding that courts can enforce religiously motivated contracts if they do not require interpreting doctrine.
• Nouri v. Dadgar (consol. with Ghazirad v. Mojarrad), 245 Md. App. 324, 226 A.3d 797 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2020): Maryland held that a Mahr may be enforced only if it meets neutral contract standards applicable to agreements between parties in a confidential relationship.

EXPERT NOTE

Here is an article about Shabanian v. Hosseini on Dowry-Mahr in U.S. Courts. For practitioners, Shabanian v. Hosseini is a reminder that Mahr agreements—like other marital contracts—cannot be dismissed out of hand. Trial courts must evaluate their terms within the framework of state contract law, premarital agreement statutes, and relevant public policy considerations. The case also highlights the importance of building a clear evidentiary record, including expert testimony when necessary, to guide courts through the cultural and legal context of such agreements.

Broader Implications

The ruling does not resolve whether the Shabanian Mahr agreement is ultimately enforceable. Instead, it signals that courts must undertake careful analysis before rejecting these contracts. For parties entering litigation over Mahr, this means preparing for a fact-intensive inquiry rather than a summary dismissal.



Across the U.S., the treatment of Mahr contracts varies:

• California tends to scrutinize them under prenuptial standards and public policy.

• East Coast states like New Jersey and Maryland enforce them under ordinary or confidential-relationship contract law standards.

• Tennessee now requires trial courts to create a transparent record before deciding either way.

The broader message: due process requires explanation. Silence, even from the bench, is not an option.

Authorities:

1. Tenn. R. Civ. P. 52.01.
2. Mahdieh Shabanian v. Seyed Mohammad Hadi Hosseini, No. W2024-00886-COA-R3-CV, 2025 WL _ (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 13, 2025).
3. Lovlace v. Copley, 418 S.W.3d 1, 34 (Tenn. 2013).
4. In re Marriage of Noghrey, 169 Cal. App. 3d 326, 215 Cal. Rptr. 153 (Cal. Ct. App. 1985).
5. In re Marriage of Dajani, 204 Cal. App. 3d 1387, 251 Cal. Rptr. 871 (Cal. Ct. App. 1988).
6. In re Marriage of Shaban, 88 Cal. App. 4th 398, 105 Cal. Rptr. 2d 863 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001).
7. Odatalla v. Odatalla, 810 A.2d 93 (N.J. Super. Ct. Ch. Div. 2002).
8. Nouri v. Dadgar (consol. with Ghazirad v. Mojarrad), 245 Md. App. 324, 226 A.3d 797 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2020).