CA_Beneficiary said:
My Father ended up marrying a woman whom he thought he knew, and he died 6 weeks after their marriage. During the past two years, we've learned that she had no college education (She had told our Father that she was a Stanford University Graduate), was a convicted felon (Grand Theft, Check Forgery, Embezzlement, etc...), and had a huge restitution order hanging over her head that our Father was unaware of (around $100,000). My Father was a heavy drinker, was suffering from the later stages of Cirhosis of the Liver, and was not altogether there. On the Marriage License they signed, the woman falsely wrote an incorrect birthdate and age to appear 6 years younger.
Could a situation like this result in a post-partem anullment or voiding of their marriage based upon either her fraudulent portrayal of herself as a different person or upon her deliberate falsification of the notorized marriage license/certificate?
My response:
An action for nullity survives the petitioner spouse's death (per Ca Civ Pro § 377.20). The deceased petitioner's personal representative may be substituted into the action (see Ca Civ Pro § 377.30 et seq.), whereupon the issue of whether a valid marriage ever existed is then properly brought to judgment before the family law court. Where there are grounds for a nullity proceeding (e.g., fraud), this "survival" feature may offer significant advantages to a terminally-ill or aged spouse . . . because a judgment of nullity (adjudication that there never was a valid marriage) will cut off the other spouse's "surviving spouse" claim to a share of the deceased spouse's estate. [Marriage of Goldberg (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 265, 271, 273, 277, 27 Cal.Rptr.2d 298, 301, 303, 305]
The problem, however, is proving your allegations. A mere incorrect birthdate does not qualify for annulment - - if that were the case, all of Za Za Gabor's husbands could have filed nullity actions instead of dissolution actions. As for the rest of your "facts", they too do not meet the standards for nullity grounds. It was up to your father to "research" his then prospective wife-to-be. He didn't.
California Grounds for Annulment (Nullity) of Marriage - -
A marriage or domestic partnership is "voidable" and thus a nullity from the time it is so adjudged if any of the following conditions existed at the time the marriage/domestic partnership was contracted (Ca Fam § 2210):
Minority:
The party who commences the nullity proceeding (or on whose behalf it is commenced) was under the age of lawful consent (under age 18) and did not obtain the requisite parental/court consent . . . unless, after attaining age 18, the party "freely cohabited with the other as husband and wife." [Ca Fam § 2210(a)]
Prior existing marriage/domestic partnership:
Either party was legally married to another or a member of another domestic partnership, but the subsequent marriage or domestic partnership is not illegal and void because within the § 2210(b)(1) & (3) "voidability" rule (former spouse/domestic partner absent for five years and not known to be living or generally reputed to be dead. [Ca Fam § 2210(b)]
Unsound mind:
Either party was of "unsound mind" (unable to understand the subject matter of the marriage/domestic partnership contract and obligations incident thereto) unless, "after coming to reason," he or she "freely cohabited with the other as husband and wife." [Ca Fam § 2210(c); Dunphy v. Dunphy (1911) 161 Cal. 380, 383, 119 P 512, 513]
Fraud:
Either party's consent to the marriage or domestic partnership was obtained by "fraud," unless the defrauded party thereafter, and with full knowledge of the facts constituting the fraud, "freely cohabited with the other" as husband and wife. [Ca Fam § 2210(d)]
Sufficiency of fraud:
The type of "fraud" sufficient to support a judgment of nullity "must go to the very essence of the marital [or domestic partnership] relation . . ." [Marriage of Johnston (1993) 18 Cal.App.4th 499, 502, 22 Cal.Rptr.2d 253, 255 (emphasis in original; brackets added); Schaub v. Schaub (1945) 71 Cal.App.2d 467, 476, 162 P.2d 966, 971]
Thus, fraud or deceit sufficient to avoid an ordinary contract will not necessarily warrant a judgment of nullity. The alleged misrepresentation or concealment must have been "vital to the relationship," directly affecting the purpose of the deceived party in consenting to the marriage/domestic partnership. [Mayer v. Mayer (1929) 207 Cal. 685, 279 P 783; Handley v. Handley (1960) 179 Cal.App.2d 742, 3 Cal.Rptr. 910]
Nor is there sufficient fraud to annul a marriage simply because a party concealed a severe drinking problem (
or, presumably, drug addiction), refused to seek employment after contracting the marriage (despite assurances before marriage to the contrary), proved to be a "disappointing" sexual partner, and/or turned from a "polite" and "nice" person before marriage to a "dirty," "unattractive" and disrespectful person after the marriage. A finding of § 2210(d) fraud cannot rest solely on the fact a spouse "turned from a prince into a frog." [Marriage of Johnston, supra, 18 Cal.App.4th at 500-502, 22 Cal.Rptr.2d at 254-255--that "husband turned out to be, in the eyes of his wife, a lazy, unshaven disappointment with a drinking problem" not sufficient grounds for annulment]
Force:
Either party's consent to the marriage or domestic partnership was obtained by "force," unless the coerced party thereafter "freely cohabited with the other" as husband and wife. [Ca Fam § 2210(e); see Marriage of Weintraub (1985) 167 Cal.App.3d 420, 422, 213 Cal.Rptr. 159, 160--W abducted by H and forced to marry him by force, beatings, intimidation and threats to W's and her family's safety]
Physical incapacity:
Either party was "physically incapable" of entering into the marriage state (unable to engage in normal copulation) and such incapacity continues and appears to be "incurable." [Ca Fam § 2210(f); Stepanek v. Stepanek (1961) 193 Cal.App.2d 760, 762, 14 Cal.Rptr. 793, 794]
IAAL