Ghassemi v. Ghassemi

998 So. 2d 731 (2008)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

W, filed suit in the East Baton Rouge Parish Family Court (family court) seeking a divorce, spousal support, and a partition of community property. W alleged that she and Hamed Ghassemi (H), were married in Barn, 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. W contends that in that same year, H entered the United States (U.S.) on a student visa. W avers that when H 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 W, after entering the U.S., H contracted a 'marriage' with an American woman, allegedly to enhance his legal status in this country. However, this purported 'marriage' ultimately ended in 'divorce.' In 1995, H made the necessary applications that allowed Hamed to enter the U.S. as his 'son.' No efforts were made for W to enter the U.S. In 2002, H 'married' another woman in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, where he had become domiciled. In 2005, through the efforts of her son, Hamed, W finally entered the U. S. as a permanent resident and also settled in Baton Rouge. W filed the present suit. H filed a peremptory exception pleading the objection of no cause of action. H contends that the marriage was invalid pursuant to section (3) of Article 1045 of the Civil Code of the Islamic Republic of Iran, which provides, in pertinent part, as follows: Marriage with the following relations by blood is forbidden, even if the relationship is based on mistake or adultery: Marriage with the brother and sister and their children, or their descendants to whatever generation. H also stated that he and W are first cousins. On November 2, 2006, H filed a pleading arguing that Louisiana had no legal obligation to 'give full legal effect' to a purported incestuous Iranian marriage. H 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. The court held that Iran has declared itself an enemy of the U.S. and not a signatory of the Hague Convention with respect to marriages. It also held that such a marriage would violate the public policy of the state. The court declined to recognize the marriage and dismissed W’s petition with prejudice. W appealed.