Ghassemi v. Ghassemi
| Decision Date | 15 October 2008 |
| Docket Number | No. 2007 CA 1927.,2007 CA 1927. |
| Citation | 998 So.2d 731 |
| Parties | Mrs. Tahereh GHASSEMI v. Hamid GHASSEMI. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
Phil Breaux, St. Gabriel, LA, for Plaintiff/Appellant, Tahereh Ghassemi.
Mark D. Plaisance, Baker, LA, and Harry W. Ezim, Jr., Brian Prendergast, Wendy Edwards, Baton Rouge, LA, for Defendant/Appellee, Hamid Ghassemi.
Before PARRO, KUHN, and DOWNING, JJ.
Plaintiff appeals a judgment declining to recognize any Iranian marriage of the parties. For the detailed reasons that follow, we reverse the judgment and remand the matter for further proceedings consistent with the opinions expressed herein. Plaintiff also appeals three interlocutory judgments in this case. For reasons that follow, we affirm the interlocutory judgments.
Plaintiff, Tahereh Ghassemi, filed suit in the East Baton Rouge Parish Family Court (family court) seeking a divorce, spousal support, and a partition of community property. In her petition, she alleged that she and the defendant, Hamid Ghassemi, were married in Bam, Iran in 1976, at which time both parties were citizens of Iran. She further alleged that a son, Hamed, was born of their union in 1977. Ms. Ghassemi contends that in that same year, Mr. Ghassemi entered the United States (U.S.) on a student visa.1 Ms. Ghassemi avers that when Mr. Ghassemi left Iran in 1977, it was with the understanding that he would return to Iran after he completed his studies or that he would arrange for her and Hamed to join him and establish a residence in the U.S. Unbeknownst to Ms. Ghassemi, after entering the U.S., Mr. Ghassemi contracted a "marriage" with an American woman, allegedly to enhance his legal status in this country. However, this purported "marriage" ultimately ended in "divorce."2
The petition further states that, in 1995, Mr. Ghassemi made the necessary applications that allowed Hamed to enter the U.S. as his "son."3 However, no efforts were made on behalf of Ms. Ghassemi for her to enter the U.S. Subsequently, in 2002, Mr. Ghassemi "married" yet another woman in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, where he had become domiciled.4 In 2005, through the efforts of her son, Hamed, Ms. Ghassemi finally entered the U.S. as a permanent resident and also settled in Baton Rouge. On May 22, 2006, she filed the present suit.
Mr. Ghassemi responded by filing a peremptory exception pleading the objection of no cause of action. He argued that the purported marriage to Ms. Ghassemi was invalid for various reasons. Specifically, Mr. Ghassemi contended that the marriage was invalid pursuant to section (3) of Article 1045 of the Civil Code of the Islamic Republic of Iran,5 which provides, in pertinent part, as follows:6
Marriage with the following relations by blood is forbidden, even if the relationship is based on mistake or adultery:
* * *
3 — Marriage with the brother and sister and their children, or their descendants to whatever generation.
* * *
In his pleadings, Mr. Ghassemi posited several arguments in support of his contention that the marriage was invalid, the principal one being that he and Ms. Ghassemi are first cousins. Following a hearing, Mr. Ghassemi's exception was overruled, and the issue of the validity of the marriage was set for a trial on the merits on December 6, 2006, along with Ms. Ghassemi's petition for divorce.7
In the interim, Ms. Ghassemi sought to obtain, through discovery, financial information and a detailed descriptive list of the community property relative to her claims for spousal support and a partition of the community property. In response to Ms. Ghassemi's discovery request, Mr. Ghassemi filed a motion to quash, and then filed a motion for a protective order and a motion to stay discovery regarding his personal and business financial information, until the family court made a determination as to whether the parties had been married and whether the marriage was valid in Louisiana. Shortly thereafter, Ms. Ghassemi filed a motion to compel regarding this same information. The opposing motions were entertained by the family court on August 29, 2006. Following the hearing, the family court granted Mr. Ghassemi's various motions and denied Ms. Ghassemi's motion to compel. Based upon the denial of Ms. Ghassemi's motion to compel, Mr. Ghassemi sought attorney fees and costs incurred in opposing the motion pursuant to LSA-C.C.P. art. 1469(4) and was subsequently awarded $1,500 in attorney fees.
During the course of the litigation, Mr. Ghassemi denied being Hamed's father. Consequently, Ms. Ghassemi filed a motion and order requesting a paternity test, which was met with Mr. Ghassemi's motion to quash. Mr. Ghassemi contended that the paternity of Hamed, now 29 years old, was irrelevant to Ms. Ghassemi's petition for divorce, spousal support, and partition of the community property. The family court ruled that it would hold this motion in abeyance until after the scheduled December trial.
On November 2, 2006, Mr. Ghassemi filed a pleading captioned, "Rule to Show Cause Why a Louisiana Court Should Have any Obligation, Under the Doctrine of Comity or Conflicts of Law, to Give Legal Effect to a Purported Incestuous Marriage of Iran, A Foreign Country With Which the United States Has No Diplomatic Relations and Motion for Declaratory Judgment with Incorporated Memorandum and Motion to Dismiss." Therein, he argued that Louisiana had no legal obligation to "give full legal effect" to a purported incestuous Iranian marriage. The matter was scheduled to be entertained on December 6, 2006, the date of the trial on the merits.
Ms. Ghassemi then filed a "Dilatory Exception of Unauthorized Use of Summary Proceedings and Objection to Request for Dismissal by Declaratory Judgment." Therein, she argued that pursuant to LSA-C.C.P. art. 926(A)(3), Mr. Ghassemi's rule and motion for a declaratory judgment constituted an unauthorized use of summary proceedings and that his request for the dismissal of her action via a declaratory judgment was impermissible. The matter was set for a hearing on December 5, 2006, the day before the scheduled trial.8
In his written opposition to the motion, Mr. Ghassemi argued that he intended to file a petition for a declaratory judgment but that it was inadvertently styled as a "motion." He further maintained that, out of an abundance of caution, a letter had been forwarded to Ms. Ghassemi's counsel advising of this mistake in captioning and stressing that the pleading was actually a "Petition for Declaratory Judgment." In addition, Mr. Ghassemi argued that because a declaratory judgment simply establishes the rights of the parties or expresses the opinion of the court on a question of law without ordering anything to be done, he also had included a "Rule to Show Cause and a Motion to Dismiss." According to Mr. Ghassemi, based on the content of the pleading, it was clearly "a Petition for Declaratory Judgment" and "a Rule to Show Cause."
We note that the record lacks a transcription of the hearing and ruling on Ms. Ghassemi's exception and objection. Moreover, no judgment appears in the record, nor do the court minutes reflect any ruling by the family court; however, it is undisputed by the parties that the family court overruled and/or denied Ms. Ghassemi's exception and objection. Ms. Ghassemi also filed a motion seeking a continuance of the trial of Mr. Ghassemi's request for declaratory relief. This motion was likewise denied.
On December 6, 2006, when counsel for Mr. Ghassemi prepared to argue what was summarized as his "petition for declaratory judgment and motion to dismiss," Ms. Ghassemi re-urged her "exception or objection;" however, she failed to argue the matter any further. The family court then held a "trial" on Mr. Ghassemi's request for declaratory relief.9 Therein, Mr. Ghassemi argued that a marriage between first cousins was a violation of a strong public policy of Louisiana and, further, that Louisiana had no obligation, under the doctrine of comity, to recognize Iranian law or to give legal effect to a marriage certificate issued by Iran.
At the conclusion of the trial, the family court stated:
This court exercising its powers vested from the state, this court will not recognize any document, decree, judgments[,] statutes or contracts, and will not give comity ... and no validity whatsoever from the country of Iran [s]ince that country has been declared by itself, and by its leader, to be an enemy of the United States. The United States has had no diplomatic relations with that country for 28 years, and they are not a signatory to the Hague Convention with respect to marriages. And even if the court recognizes the marriage, it will violate public policy of this state; and therefore the declaratory judgment is granted.
However, despite rendering this "initial" ruling from the bench, the family court later ordered the parties to submit post-trial memoranda.
Finally, on June 13, 2007, the family court issued written reasons and separately signed a final judgment, which contained the following decretal language:
IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that this Court declines to recognize, will not recognize, and hereby declines to give full faith and credit to the laws, judgment, decrees, treaties' [sic] or pronouncements of the country of IRAN.10
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that this Court declines give [sic] comity and declines to recognize any laws, judgments, decrees, treaties' [sic] or legal pronouncement of the country of IRAN.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that this Court declines to recognize any IRANIAN purported incestuous marriage of the parties and hereby dismisses [Ms. Ghassemi's] petition with prejudice.
Significantly, the judgment did not expressly state that the marriage was a violation of a strong public policy of this state.
From this judgment, Ms. Ghassemi now appeals. In so doing, she also challenges the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ex parte State ex rel. Ala. Policy Inst.
...6 PLoS Biology 2627, 2627 (2008). The States, however, remain split: half of them still permit the practice. Ghassemi v. Ghassemi, 998 So.2d 731, 749 (La.Ct.App.2008). Strict scrutiny? Neither Loving nor any other Supreme Court decision says so."DeBoer v. Snyder, 772 F.3d 388, 412–13 (6th C......
-
DeBoer v. Snyder
...6 PLoS Biology 2627, 2627 (2008). The States, however, remain split: half of them still permit the practice. Ghassemi v. Ghassemi, 998 So.2d 731, 749 (La.Ct.App.2008). Strict scrutiny? Neither Loving nor any other Supreme Court decision says so.F.Discrete and insular class without political......
-
Wederstrandt v. Kol
...of marriages." Wilkinson v. Wilkinson, 323 So.2d 120, 124 (La. 1975); Ghassemi v. Ghassemi, 2007-1927, p. 10 (La.App. 1 Cir. 10/15/08), 998 So.2d 731, 739; Boyett v. Ingram, 391 So.2d 960, 961 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1980). Absent the express inclusion of a "sham" marriage in the enumerated list of......
-
Morris v. Morris, No. 2009 CA 2069 (La. App. 6/11/2010)
...the state where it was contracted, the marriage is accorded a presumption of validity. LSC.C. art. 3520; Ghassemi v. Ghassemi, 07-1927 (La. App. 1 Cir. 10/15/08), 998 So.2d 731, 738-739. The presumption may be rebutted by proving that recognition of the foreign marriage would violate a stro......
-
Beyond DOMA: choice of state law in federal statutes.
...in original) (quoting TEX. CONST. art. I, [section] 32(a)). (77.) Perhaps in Louisiana too, according to dicta in Ghassemi v. Ghassemi, 998 So. 2d 731 (La. Ct. App. 2008), which noted that "the Louisiana Legislature has not expressly outlawed marriages between first cousins regardless of wh......
-
ILLIBERAL LAW IN AMERICAN COURTS.
...(109) See Eugene Volokh, Foreign Law in American Courts, 66 OKLA. L. REV. 219, 228 (2017). (110) See id. (111) Ghassemi v. Ghassemi, 998 So. 2d 731 (La. Ct. App. (112) Id.; see also Volokh, supra note 109, at 228. (113) See Popular Imports, Inc. v. Wong's Int'l, Inc., 166 F.R.D. 276, 277-78......