If you have questions about divorce, legal separation, alimony entitlement, or alimony in Connecticut, please feel free to call the experienced divorce attorneys at Maya Murphy, P.C. in Westport today at 203-221-3100 or email Joseph C. Maya, Esq. at JMaya@Mayalaw.com.

A man’s claim that his marriage was valid despite the fact that he and his partner did not obtain a marriage license may move forward to trial, a Manhattan judge has ruled.

Jackson K. also is pursuing a conversion claim for the $25,000 engagement ring that he gave Parisa G. before they were united in an Iranian Islamic wedding in 2010.
According to court papers, Jackson and Parisa have known each other since childhood, entered into a romantic relationship in 2006 and moved in together in 2007.

After two years, Jackson asked Parisa’s parents for permission to marry their daughter. Jackson and Parisa’s mother split the cost of the engagement ring, with Jackson paying $10,000 and the mother paying $15,000.

On Sept. 4, 2010, the parties were wed at the New York Institute of Technology de Seversky Mansion in Old Westbury. Prior to the ceremony, invitations were sent to 200 guests, the parties registered for wedding gifts and created a website for the ceremony.

Jackson and Parisa signed a prenuptial agreement, and Jackson claims that he converted to Islam.

At the ceremony-which featured a band, a DJ, a videographer and a photographer-guests were presented with a four-page program stating that it was for the “Wedding of Parisa and Jackson” and listed Sholeh Shams, who was flown in from California, as the “ceremony officiant.”

While Jackson and Parisa did not obtain a marriage license before the wedding or a civil certificate of marriage at the conclusion of the ceremony, they signed a marriage contract written in Farsi, in the presence of witnesses.

Jackson and Parisa lived together after the wedding but did not file joint tax returns. About one year into the marriage, Parisa had Jackson sign a domestic partnership form.

In 2013, they separated.

Jackson sought a court declaration that their marriage was valid, arguing that he and Parisa solemnly took each other as husband and wife in a ceremony performed before a “clergyman or magistrate” in the presence of witnesses and that the marriage was solemnized in the manner practiced in the Islamic faith.

In response, Parisa filed a motion to dismiss the suit, arguing that Shams was not authorized to solemnize the marriage. Noting that Jackson never obtained a marriage license, she said the marriage was symbolic only.

Jackson also claimed fraud, negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent omission representation and conversion, alleging that he was falsely led to believe that he was the party to a valid marriage before an authorized officiant and that the wedding was recognized in Iran.

In a ruling handed down on April 8 in Jackson K. v. Parisa G., 300957/2015, Acting Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Laura Drager ruled on the validity of marriage claim separately from Jackson’s other claims, but denied Parisa’s motion to dismiss all the claims.

Drager said that, under Domestic Relations Law §25, a marriage ceremony may still be valid if it was solemnized between “persons of full age” even if a license is not obtained.

Parisa submitted affidavits from Shams stating that she was not authorized to officiate the ceremony, but Drager said that the affidavits do not amount to “conclusive documentary evidence” and noted that Jackson has offered evidence that contradict’s Shams claims, including websites in which she is identified as “clergy” and a “solemnizer.”

Drager also rejected Parisa’s argument that the declaration of domestic partnership that Jackson and Parisa signed constitutes documentary evidence that the two were never married.

Regarding Jackson’s argument that the marriage was solemnized according to the rules of the Islamic faith, Drager said that the “ultimate issue” in the case is whether the ceremony met the requirements of Domestic Relations Law §12, which requires that parties to a marriage must solemnly declare in the presence of a clergyman or magistrate and before a witness or witnesses that they take each other as husband and wife and that the marriage must be solemnized in the manner “practiced in their respective societies or denominations.”

The term “clergyman,” Drager said, is defined in the Religious Corporations Law as a person “having authority from, or in accordance with, the rules and regulations of the governing ecclesiastical body of the denomination or order, if any, to which the church belongs.”

However, “Under New York law, an officiant at a religious wedding ceremony need not be limited to a traditional concept of a member of the clergy or a minister ordained by a religious order,” Drager wrote.

Drager said that a court may be able to determine if a person meets the criteria in the Religious Corporations Law without “embroiling the court in religious controversy,” and thus whether or not Shams was qualified to solemnize the marriage between Jackson and Parisa is an issue of fact.

Ruling on Parisa’s motion to dismiss Jackson’s fraud claim, Drager wrote that Jackson is not entitled to punitive damages, but said that, contrary to Parisa’s argument, her alleged misstatements were “not mere statements of future intentions and speculative promises or expectations.”

Drager said that it is “well-established” that an engagement ring becomes “property of the donor” in the event that an engagement is broken, though Jackson’s possession of the ring may be an issue of fact at trial, given that he and Parisa’s mother both paid for it.

For a free consultation, please do not hesitate to call the experienced family law and divorce attorneys at Maya Murphy, P.C. in Westport, CT at 203-221-3100. We may also be reached for inquiries by email at JMaya@mayalaw.com.

Source: NY Law Journal