United Arab Emirates Law and Maine Courts

Alolwan was born in Saudi Arabia and is a dual citizen of Saudi Arabia and the United States, having moved to the United States in 2006. Aldarraji came to the United States from Iraq in 2018. The parties met in 2019, and later that year they traveled to Dubai, United Arab Emirates, for a religious marriage ceremony. There was no religious official physically present with the parties in Dubai; an imam affiliated with a mosque in Biddeford, Maine, officiated the ceremony remotely. The ceremony was performed according to the laws of the parties’ Islamic faith, and after the ceremony the imam provided them with a certificate of religious marriage.

Soon after, the parties had a wedding reception in Turkey, and on January 16, 2020, while in Turkey, the parties and two witnesses signed the certificate of religious marriage that the imam had provided them. The parties then returned to Maine. They never participated in a marriage ceremony in Maine nor took any steps to validate their marriage in accordance with Maine law ….

Alolwan filed a motion to dismiss [Aldarraji’s] complaint on the basis that no lawful marriage existed between the parties. The court held an evidentiary hearing and later issued a written order granting Alolwan’s motion to dismiss. The court concluded that although the parties had participated in a valid religious marriage ceremony, they had not complied with Maine’s statutory marriage requirements and therefore had “failed to establish a legal marriage in Maine.” Nor, according to the court, were the parties legally married “anywhere else.” …

“[W]e have declined to recognize common law marriage” in Maine, instead leaving “policy decisions regarding marriage and divorce to the Legislature.” “[T]he requirements for a valid marriage are provided by statute” …. Generally, a couple seeking to become married under Maine law must first record their intention to be married by submitting a marriage application to a municipal clerk or the State Registrar of Vital Statistics. The clerk or Registrar then issues the parties a marriage license. The couple is then free to marry, and the ceremony must be solemnized by a person authorized by law to do so and must occur in the presence of at least two other witnesses. The marriage becomes legal once certain information, including the location and date of the ceremony, has been documented on the marriage license and the license has been signed by the couple, the witnesses, and the officiant. Finally, within fifteen “working days” of the date of solemnization, the marriage license must be returned to the clerk or Registrar.

Although Aldarraji does not argue that she and Alolwan complied with this procedure, she contends that her religious marriage to Alolwan was nonetheless valid under Maine’s statutory scheme. For support, she relies on two provisions of Title 19-A that allow for exceptions to the general rules: section 657, which provides that a marriage that is “in other respects lawful” is valid even if the solemnizing official lacks jurisdiction or authority or there exists an “omission or informality” in the process the parties followed; and section 658, which exempts Quakers or Friends and members of the Baha’i faith from some of the statutory requirements. Regarding section 658, Aldarraji asserts that unless we interpret the statute to extend to members of the Islamic faith, it is unconstitutional….

We do not reach Aldarraji’s statutory or constitutional arguments, however, because we conclude that Maine law does not apply when determining the validity of a marriage that did not occur in Maine….

Generally, in the case of a marriage that occurred elsewhere, we will recognize the marriage as valid if entered into pursuant to the laws of the jurisdiction where it occurred, unless it is contrary to the basic public policies of this state. Aldarraji argues that we should jettison this approach in favor of the Second Restatement[ of Conflict of Laws] mode of analysis, which involves using the laws of the jurisdiction that “has the most significant relationship to the spouses and the marriage” to determine the validity of a marriage. She further contends that because she and Alolwan have continuously resided in Maine since before their religious ceremony, we should use Maine law to assess the legality of their marriage.

We have never applied the Second Restatement’s approach in the context of determining the validity of a marriage, and we decline to do so here. Instead, we adhere to our general rule that the validity of a marriage should be determined according to the laws of the jurisdiction in which the marriage ceremony occurred. This is consistent with the view of a number of courts faced with this question….

The benefit of this rule is its simplicity. One of the major drawbacks of the Second Restatement method is its complexity. “Sound public policy dictates that there be a minimum of uncertainty as to whether or not a valid marriage exists.” Our decision today provides that clarity—when Maine courts are asked to determine the validity of a marriage, they will look to the laws of the jurisdiction where the marriage ceremony occurred.

{We emphasize that nothing in our decision precludes Maine couples from having a wedding outside of Maine and achieving a valid marriage by either complying with the requirements of the out-of-state jurisdiction or following Maine’s statutory process before or after the wedding.} …

The trial court … invit[ed] Aldarraji to demonstrate “that there was a legal marriage in Dubai that the State of Maine should recognize.” Aldarraji did not avail herself of this opportunity, arguing instead that her extraterritorial marriage complied with Maine’s statutory marriage procedures. On appeal, Aldarraji continues to insist that we should assess the validity of her marriage by reference to Maine law. She has therefore waived any argument that she was lawfully married according to the laws of the United Arab Emirates….