Memorandum Opinion by Justice McLaughlin, 14-24-00880-CV, February 03, 2026.
On appeal from the 328th District Court of Fort Bend County
Synopsis
The Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed a trial court’s divorce decree enforcing an Egyptian pre-marital dowry agreement that required the husband to return 147 grams of gold to the wife. The court held that because the wife provided a translated copy of the agreement and the husband failed to meet the rigorous statutory burden to prove unenforceability under Texas Family Code § 4.006, the trial court acted within its broad discretion in its division of the marital estate.
Relevance to Family Law
This opinion reinforces the formidable hurdles a party faces when attempting to invalidate a foreign pre-marital agreement in a Texas forum. It confirms that the Texas Family Code’s strong public policy favoring the enforcement of such agreements applies to international contracts—specifically Egyptian dowry lists—and that a party’s self-serving testimony regarding the non-existence or lack of possession of assets will not override a validly executed agreement. For practitioners, the case serves as a reminder that the burden of proof for unenforceability remains firmly on the party challenging the agreement, regardless of the property’s physical location or current possession.
Case Summary
Fact Summary
Mahmoud Abdelwahed and Nermin Hassanin were married in Egypt and later sought a divorce in Fort Bend County, Texas. During the property division phase of the trial, Hassanin sought the return of 147 grams of 21-karat gold. She supported her claim with an original Egyptian document and an English translation titled “List of marital property/movables,” which she characterized as a pre-marital dowry agreement. She testified that, per their culture and the written agreement, Abdelwahed was required to return these items upon divorce. Abdelwahed contested the order, testifying that he did not possess the gold and that the property essentially did not exist. The trial court included the gold in its division of the estate, characterizing it as Hassanin’s separate property and ordering Abdelwahed to “surrender and release” it to her.
Issues Decided
The court addressed whether the trial court abused its discretion by ordering the return of specific gold items based on an Egyptian pre-marital agreement when the appellant claimed the property was no longer in his possession.
Rules Applied
The court applied Texas Family Code § 7.001, which grants trial courts “wide discretion” in ordering a just and right division of the marital estate. Regarding the contract itself, the court looked to Texas Family Code § 4.006, which establishes that pre-marital agreements are presumed valid and places the burden on the party opposing enforcement to prove involuntary execution or unconscionability. Additionally, the court cited Beck v. Beck, affirming the state’s public policy to enforce such agreements, and In re W.E.R., noting that in the absence of findings of fact and conclusions of law, the judgment must be affirmed if it can be upheld on any legal theory supported by the evidence.
Application
The court’s analysis focused on the failure of the appellant to provide any evidence rebutting the validity of the Egyptian agreement. Once Hassanin introduced the translated document and testified to its purpose, the burden shifted to Abdelwahed to prove it was unenforceable under the narrow grounds provided in § 4.006. Because Abdelwahed did not deny signing the contract and offered no evidence of unconscionability or lack of disclosure, the court found the agreement enforceable. The court also summarily dismissed Abdelwahed’s reliance on Texas Property Code § 24A.002, noting that statutes governing “writs of retrieval” for residence access were inapplicable to the enforcement of a property division in a divorce decree. Because there was “some evidence of a substantial and probative character” (the contract and the wife’s testimony), the trial court was within its rights to credit that evidence over the husband’s denials.
Holding
The Court of Appeals held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in dividing the marital estate or in enforcing the terms of the Egyptian pre-marital agreement. The court affirmed that the evidence was legally and factually sufficient to support the order for the return of the gold items.
The court further held that a party seeking to avoid the terms of a pre-marital agreement bears the sole burden of proof to establish unenforceability, and that the appellant’s failure to challenge the execution or the fairness of the agreement at the trial level precluded relief on appeal.
Practical Application
This case provides a strategic roadmap for litigators dealing with international clients. To successfully enforce a foreign marriage contract, counsel must ensure they have a certified translation that meets the Texas Rules of Evidence. Once the agreement is admitted, the “presumption of validity” becomes a powerful tool that essentially necessitates the opposing party to prove a negative or meet the high bar of unconscionability. Conversely, for the party resisting enforcement, this case highlights the futility of arguing “possession” as a defense to a contractual property obligation. Defenses must be rooted in the formation of the contract itself—focusing on voluntariness, disclosure of assets, and the circumstances of the signing—rather than the current state of the assets.
Checklists
Enforcing Foreign Dowry Agreements
- Obtain the original foreign instrument (e.g., Egyptian Marriage Contract or List of Movables).
- Secure a certified English translation that complies with Texas Rules of Evidence for foreign documents.
- Present testimony (lay or expert) regarding the cultural context and the intent of the parties to treat the items as separate property or a returnable dowry.
- Confirm that the client can identify the specific gram weight or value of the items as listed in the instrument.
Defending Against Enforcement of Pre-Marital Agreements
- Assert affirmative defenses under Texas Family Code § 4.006 early in the litigation.
- Investigate the circumstances of the signing: Was it signed under duress? Was there a lack of independent legal counsel?
- Analyze whether there was a “fair and reasonable disclosure” of the property or financial obligations of the other party at the time of signing.
- Avoid focusing solely on the “non-existence” of the property; instead, challenge the validity of the underlying contract that creates the obligation to produce that property.
Citation
Abdelwahed v. Hassanin, No. 14-24-00880-CV, 2026 WL ______ (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Feb. 3, 2026, no pet. h.) (mem. op.).
Full Opinion
The full opinion can be found here: Full Opinion Link
~~13c1357a-202e-4658-8a44-69cb080dbe1f~~
Share this content: