The parties also participated in a third event in Iran in 2007. Although
Ms. Mojarrad alleges that this was a third wedding ceremony, Mr. Ghazirad contends it
was merely a reception. Ms. Mojarrad asserts that the parties signed a second, much more
specific mahr at this third event. Approximately one week before trial, Ms. Mojarrad
produced for the first time a copy of the Farsi marriage contract that she claims the parties
signed in Iran. At trial, Mr. Ghazirad’s counsel contended that an English translation
Ms. Mojarrad had obtained was “incomplete.” During the testimony of Ms. Moharrad’s
Islamic law expert witness, the court suggested that the parties “have the witness just talk
about the Farsi version.” Ms. Mojarrad’s counsel accordingly asked her expert to translate
part of the document from the witness stand, which he did as follows:
[T]he sadaq, which is, again, is a mahr, is one book of God, the Quran, and
then, and then there is a 100,000 rials, and then, included with mirror and
some lighters and also one ring, 5,000,000 rials, that already given to her,
and she confessed that, and then there are 500 coin in the name of
(unintelligible), freedom, (unintelligible) freedom. That’s a kind of Iranian,
a very famous one. . . . In addition to one pilgrimage trip that is on his
shoulder, and when, ende-al-mutalebeh, the one which I said, when it is
asked for, then he has to give it to the wife. That’s the translation.
Mr. Ghazirad denied that the parties signed a second mahr and objected to the
introduction of the late-produced Farsi document. The court admitted the purported second
mahr into evidence but “recognize[d] there[ was] some disagreement” regarding its
authenticity. In its written opinion, the court noted the parties’ disagreement but did not
make any findings of fact regarding whether the Iranian event was a third wedding
ceremony or whether the parties entered a second mahr.
The alleged second mahr is more specific than the first in several respects, two of
which relate to the parties’ claims. First, whereas the Virginia mahr refers only to “gold
coin,” the alleged Farsi mahr, as translated and described, references a “very famous . . .
gold” Iranian “freedom” coin, which the court found was the Spring of Freedom gold
bullion coin. That difference appears not to have played a role in the court’s decision,
insofar as the court stated that it relied on testimony, and not the Farsi mahr, to identify the
value of the coins referenced in the Virginia mahr. Second, whereas the Virginia mahr
does not identify any payment terms, the Iranian mahr, as translated and described, states
that payment is due “when it is asked for.” It is unclear whether the court relied on the
Farsi mahr’s provision regarding the timing of the payment obligation. To the extent that
is relevant to the court’s decision on remand, the court will clarify that point.