N.Y. Validates License-less Religious Marriages But Not N.J., Unless…

April 21, 2009

muslim-weddingProf. Howard M. Friedman, at the Religion Clause blog, has posted another very interesting case relating to New York Domestic Relations Law.

He reported on the case of Matter of Farraj, decided by the Surrogate’s Court in Kings County last week. In that case, Rabaa M. Hanash, the decedent Daoud Farraj’s wife, petitioned the court for an accounting of her husband’s estate. An adult child of the decedent, Saed Farraj, claimed that Rabaa had no standing to compel the accounting because she was not legally married to the decedent.

He claimed that this was the case because the couple did not obtain a marriage licence and were married in a Muslim ceremony in New Jersey, though they actually lived in New York. And according to New Jersey law (N.J. Stat. § 37:1-10) a marriage is absolutely void  if a the couple fails to obtain a marriage license before the ceremony. He argued, therefore, that Daoud and Rabaa’s marriage was void and that consequently, Rabaa was not a spouse with standing to petition to compel an accounting in her husband’s estate.

The Surrogate held that the validity of the marriage in question is governed by New York law,  and not New Jersey law, because the parties maintained their domicile in New York. Under New York law, marriages performed in religious ceremonies are recognized as valid even if no marriage license is obtained. The marriage between Radaa and Daoud was therefore valid under the governing New York law, so the court held that Radaa had standing to petition for an accounting in her husband’s estate proceeding.

I would like to consider the a slight variation on these facts though, to show that even though New Jersey law invalidates marriage ceremonies performed without a license, a New Jersey court would still validate the marriage in this case.

Normally, a New Jersey court would only have jurisdiction over an estate proceeding in the above-mentioned facts, if the parties’ primary domicile was in NJ. And if they had jurisdiction, they would have invalidated the marriage because the marriage ceremony took place without a license. But let’s say the couple had a vacation home in New Jersey and therefore had to do an ancillary probate proceeding in New Jersey to dispose of the home. In such a case, their domicile would still be in New York, but a New Jersey probate court would still have jurisdiction in the ancillary probate proceeding for the NJ vacation home.

Under those facts, if someone challenged the wife’s standing, a New Jersey court ought to agree that the couple’s marriage was valid under New York law (where the couple were domiciled) and therefore that the wife has standing as a widow of the decedent. It should further consider the couple’s marriage to be valid under New Jersey law, pursuant to the Constitution’s Full Faith and Credit clause (Article IV, Section 1), which obligates states to recognize  the “public acts, records, and judicial rulings” of other states. 

Because the couple was domiciled in New York, even a NJ court would hold that the marriage was valid under New York law, and by extension, under New Jersey law as well pursuant to the “full faith and credit” clause.

The New Jersey Supreme Court held in Heur v. Heur, 704 A 2d 913, 916 (1998), that “full faith and credit need not be accorded a judgment of another jurisdiction when the court issuing the judgment lacked the jurisdictional prerequisite of domicile.” Under our facts, the couple would have met the jurisdictional prerequisite of domicile in New York, and therefore a New Jersey court considering an ancillary probate proceeding  would apply New York law to determine the validity of Radaa and Daoud’s marriage. (Is it relevant that despite the couple’s domicile in New York, no New York court every officially ruled on the validity of their marriage?)

Thus, I think that were a New Jersey court to have jurisdiction over an ancilary probate proceeding under the facts, as suggested above, it would also recognize the validity of the Muslim ceremony, even without the marriage license, to give the decedent’s wife standing to petition for an accounting.

Picture courtesy of trendsupdates.com

6 Responses to “N.Y. Validates License-less Religious Marriages But Not N.J., Unless…”

  1. An associate in the Law Offices of Elliot Schlissel, Michael Ciaravino, pointed out that even in the circumstances that I offered in this post, the NJ court would still not necessarily have to decide on which state’s law should be used to decide the validity of the marriage. The court would probably not want to see inconsistent results in the primary probate case versus the ancillary probate case. Thus they would probably just put the ancillary case on hold until the New York court decided the issue of whether or not the marriage should be analyzed according to NJ or NY law.

    I wonder if anyone can think of a fact pattern where a NJ court would have to consider the validity of a marriage in circumstaces as outlined above, where they would actually have jurisdiction, and where their case wouldn’t be “subservient” to some New York case…

  2. pj klein Says:

    but what if someone purports to be married—a year after the death of the decedant and who never lived together–and have as their only proof a suppoosed clergy member’s testimony? Further they are saying this “marriage” took place in a foreign language in PA rather than NY (the clergy is from NY)? Sounds wierd to say the least, right?

  3. […] But generally speaking, common law marriages only apply to the state. It's not federally legal. N.Y. Validates License-less Religious Marriages But Not N.J., Unless… "Don't criticize someone until you've walked a mile in their shoes. That way, when you do […]

  4. Hannah Hall Says:

    the best vacation homes are those that are located near the beaches, they are really cool *:”

  5. I’m a student studying at Rutgers University and actually like what you have gathered in this article, definitely like what you’re thinking and the method through
    which you declare it. Your post was splendidly balanced between entertaining and intelligent.

    I cannot wait to discover much more thanks to you. This is absolutely a
    great web site.

  6. Burhan Nomani Says:

    It was an excellent post for my Immigration client. Thank you

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: