• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

Does my situation qualify as fraud for an annulment?

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

barnabybquentin

Junior Member
Edit: Issue resolved. Does not qualify for annulment. I will leave this here for future reference for others since it got pretty long.

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? CA

I have two questions. The important question regards whether or not my wife and I qualify for an annulment in the state of CA. We reached an impasse in March and have finally mutually agreed to end our relationship amicably. We would like an annulment, but if it is not possible then we will settle for a different sort of separation. I will give as much information as I can to help paint our situation properly.

We have been married for 1 year and 2 months. I am 25 and she is 28. We moved into an apartment and have been living together for about 1 year and 1 month. She is in the Air Force and I am not in the military. Our marriage began after she was already in the military for 6 months. We have no children and she is not pregnant.

We believe that our situation may constitute as fraud. The situation is thus: she is and has always been adamantly against having children. I have always been adamantly for adopting children in my lifetime. Each of these ideals were known to both parties at the beginning of the relationship 3 years ago. After a year of dating I lied about changing my mind. I then concealed the fact that I still wanted kids in order to get her to marry me. I had hoped that when revealing this later, she would have a change of heart (I know that I am stupid thank you). I did so in March and basically ripped her heart out. We have been trying to reconcile since then, but the looming presence of this deal-breaking debate was always over our heads. After much private discussion (no professional counseling if that matters), we came to our current conclusion that we cannot continue this marriage due to my fraudulent act. She stated that she would not have married me if I had told her that I still wanted kids. According to the courtinfo.ca.gov, a marriage where one party "conceals an important fact (that I want children) such as permanent impotence or sterility" is fraudulent. We consider my deception to be extremely similar to their example.

Does this qualify for as fraud and can we get an annulment? If not, what is the next best alternative? We would like to avoid a divorce simply due to the negative connotations involved, but will settle for one if absolutely necessary.





My second question is about alimony. We are currently in agreement as to my not paying alimony, as we are still friendly. However, sometimes people change and I would like to be prepared if the unlikely occurs. If she later decides that she changed her mind and wants to collect alimony from me, can she? Obviously we haven't initiated any court action yet, so she could still get an attorney and try to collect alimony. I make more than her by a large margin, but she is currently still in the same position that she was in prior to the marriage, so I don't believe that there can be any reason for her to be able to collect from me (there was no "holding back" or raising of children or any of the usual reasons. She had a career before the marriage and still has the same career, completely unaffected by me. Actually, I moved across the country and had to find a new job due to her military position.)

She makes around $30,000 per year. I make about $80,000 taxable income per year. We own no property and have little in terms of material goods to split. I have only had my job for almost 1 year and we really haven't bought anything at all. I have been paying for rent and most living expenses due to my higher income and saving all of my extra money. We initially made this agreement so that she could pay her old student loans from before the marriage. She still has about $8,000 in student loans, which is why I fear that she may try and claim payment from me. I have about $40,000 in the bank and no 401k, but I do have an IRA worth about $4000. Is it possible for her to claim any alimony from me or to claim part of my banked savings?

The money question isn't nearly as important as the fraud question, but I threw it in there anyways just in case anyone had an answer.

Apologies for the massive description and thanks for readingWhat is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?
 
Last edited:


mistoffolees

Senior Member
As for fraud, you're probably not going to get an annulment on that basis. There just isn't enough there. Besides, a divorce will be quicker and less expensive, so just go for the divorce (this question has been asked and answered dozens of times - a quick search would have gotten your answer).

As for alimony, in almost any state in the country, you wouldn't have to worry about alimony on such a short term marriage. The one major exception is CA where alimony can be awarded even for short term marriages, typically for about 1/2 the length of the marriage. The amount will depend on a number of factors, so it's hard to say what it would be, but it wouldn't last for long. However, the longer you delay in filing for divorce, the longer it would be paid.

MARITAL assets and debts will be split 50:50. If you accumulated savings during the marriage, she's entitled to half of what you've accumulated. If the value of your assets grew, she's entitled to half of the growth, unless you can demonstrate that it is a separate asset and has never been co-mingled with marital funds.

The student loan debt is not a divorce issue. As far as a divorce court is concerned, she owes that money and it's not your problem. HOWEVER, if you signed an agreement taking on the debt, then she could go after you in small claims court if you don't pay. If you didn't sign anything, I wouldn't worry about it.
 
Last edited:

barnabybquentin

Junior Member
Copied from: California Annulment (Nullity) Law & Procedure - Family Law Attorney (Lawyer)

The type of "fraud" sufficient to support a judgment of nullity must go to the very essence of the marital [or domestic partnership] relation. 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.​

First, having children is considered a marital right, and constitutes the "essence of the marital relation." Many folks consider children the entire purpose of marriage.

Second, having children is "vital to the relationship" for one party. Not having children is "vital to the relationship" for the other party. This deception directly affected one party's consent to the marriage. The marriage clearly would not have occurred had fraud not taken place.

Am I wrong in my interpretation? We are going together to get a free consultation from a divorce lawyer next week, but we would like to be more prepared.
 

Zigner

Senior Member, Non-Attorney
Copied from: California Annulment (Nullity) Law & Procedure - Family Law Attorney (Lawyer)

The type of "fraud" sufficient to support a judgment of nullity must go to the very essence of the marital [or domestic partnership] relation. 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.​

First, having children is considered a marital right, and constitutes the "essence of the marital relation." Many folks consider children the entire purpose of marriage.

Second, having children is "vital to the relationship" for one party. Not having children is "vital to the relationship" for the other party. This deception directly affected one party's consent to the marriage. The marriage clearly would not have occurred had fraud not taken place.

Am I wrong in my interpretation? We are going together to get a free consultation from a divorce lawyer next week, but we would like to be more prepared.
You're wrong. NEITHER of you wanted to "have" children. YOU wanted to adopt.
 

barnabybquentin

Junior Member
So adoption makes it different? Are you saying that the answer to fraud is no for wanting to adopt but yes for wanting biological children?

I can't begin to express how your attitude is demeaning to adoption in general.

Regardless, pretend that I wanted biological children. Does this change the situation?
 

mommyof4

Senior Member
Many folks consider children the entire purpose of marriage.
Many folks may, but that doesn't mean that the state of CA does. Guess which group is germaine to your argument.
 

Zigner

Senior Member, Non-Attorney
So adoption makes it different? Are you saying that the answer to fraud is no for wanting to adopt but yes for wanting biological children?
Again, you did not ever intend to "have" children.

I can't begin to express how your attitude is demeaning to adoption in general.
I had considered putting a disclaimer in my statement, but I know that the people on this board know me well enough to realize that I am a great proponent of adoption (and have, in fact, an adopted daughter)

Regardless, pretend that I wanted biological children. Does this change the situation?
With regard to "fraud"? Quite possibly. However, as you have been told, divorce is much easier and cheaper.

ETA: mommyof4's answer is more correct than mine with regard to the "fraud" component.
 

mommyof4

Senior Member
So adoption makes it different? Are you saying that the answer to fraud is no for wanting to adopt but yes for wanting biological children?

I can't begin to express how your attitude is demeaning to adoption in general.

Regardless, pretend that I wanted biological children. Does this change the situation?
No.

Lying to your intended spouse that you are capable of conceiving a child (when you are not) in order to get him or her to marry you is fraud.

Deciding that you do or do not want a child, regardless of the method, is not fraud. Yes, you lied to her, but that doesn't mean that she is locked into having or adopting a child with you.

Do you see the difference?
 

barnabybquentin

Junior Member
No.

Lying to your intended spouse that you are capable of conceiving a child (when you are not) in order to get him or her to marry you is fraud.

Deciding that you do or do not want a child, regardless of the method, is not fraud. Yes, you lied to her, but that doesn't mean that she is locked into having or adopting a child with you.

Do you see the difference?
I see the difference. Being inable is different from choosing not to.

However, lying about your intent to ever even have a child seems to still qualify as fraud, based on the wording of all the annulment fraud definitions that I keep finding online. Maybe my interpretation is poor, but the last quote that I posted states that fraud that goes against the essence of a marital relationship qualifies. Inability to have children goes against the essence of a marital relationship. Shouldn't refusal to have children do the same?

Alternatively, look at it from the wife's perspective. For her, being childless is vital to the relationship. My fraud was concealing that I did not want what was vital to a relationship by her definition.
 

barnabybquentin

Junior Member
From http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/nonpub/B201031.DOC

Fraud-based annulments have been granted almost exclusively in cases involving fraud that relates in some way to the sexual, procreative, or child-rearing aspects of marriage. (Meagher & Maleki, supra, 131 Cal.App.4th at pp. 7-8.) Fraud sufficient to support an annulment has been found when a prospective spouse concealed his or her intention not to: (1) engage in sexual relations with the other spouse (In re Marriage of Liu, supra, 197 Cal.App.3d at p. 156); (2) live in the same house with the other spouse (Handley v. Handley (1960) 179 Cal.App.2d 742, 747-748); (3) terminate an intimate relationship with a third person after the marriage (In re Ramirez, supra, 165 Cal.App.4th at p. 759; Schaub v. Schaub (1945) 71 Cal.App.2d 467, 477-479); or (4) have children with the other spouse notwithstanding a promise to the contrary (Maslow v. Maslow (1953) 117 Cal.App.2d 237, disapproved on other grounds by Liodas v. Sahadi (1977) 19 Cal.3d 278, 287). Annulments have also been justified based on a spouse’s concealment of his or her sterility (Vileta v. Vileta (1942) 53 Cal.App.2d 794) and a wife’s concealment at the time of marriage that she was pregnant with another man’s child (Hardesty v. Hardesty (1924) 193 Cal. 330).​

Maslow v. Maslow dealt with a similar issue: one party promising to have children and then not following through. Liodas v. Sahadi is over my head :) but appears to deal with proof of fraud in contested cases. Ours is uncontested, so maybe it is irrelevant?

Our situation is promising not to have children and then not following through (although I suppose it isn't really "not following through" since I haven't gone and obtained a child behind her back, more like not intending to follow through.)

Are we making irrelevant connections? Is google search a hindrance (all sorts of folks think they can just find related articles and post them as fact like me)?

Also yes, we know that a divorce would be easier and have already stated that we will do so as a last resort. Divorce is still a scary word.
 

Zigner

Senior Member, Non-Attorney
From http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/nonpub/B201031.DOC

Fraud-based annulments have been granted almost exclusively in cases involving fraud that relates in some way to the sexual, procreative, or child-rearing aspects of marriage. (Meagher & Maleki, supra, 131 Cal.App.4th at pp. 7-8.) Fraud sufficient to support an annulment has been found when a prospective spouse concealed his or her intention not to: (1) engage in sexual relations with the other spouse (In re Marriage of Liu, supra, 197 Cal.App.3d at p. 156); (2) live in the same house with the other spouse (Handley v. Handley (1960) 179 Cal.App.2d 742, 747-748); (3) terminate an intimate relationship with a third person after the marriage (In re Ramirez, supra, 165 Cal.App.4th at p. 759; Schaub v. Schaub (1945) 71 Cal.App.2d 467, 477-479); or (4) have children with the other spouse notwithstanding a promise to the contrary (Maslow v. Maslow (1953) 117 Cal.App.2d 237, disapproved on other grounds by Liodas v. Sahadi (1977) 19 Cal.3d 278, 287). Annulments have also been justified based on a spouse’s concealment of his or her sterility (Vileta v. Vileta (1942) 53 Cal.App.2d 794) and a wife’s concealment at the time of marriage that she was pregnant with another man’s child (Hardesty v. Hardesty (1924) 193 Cal. 330).​

Maslow v. Maslow dealt with a similar issue: one party promising to have children and then not following through. Liodas v. Sahadi is over my head :) but appears to deal with proof of fraud in contested cases. Ours is uncontested, so maybe it is irrelevant?

Our situation is promising not to have children and then not following through (although I suppose it isn't really "not following through" since I haven't gone and obtained a child behind her back, more like not intending to follow through.)

Are we making irrelevant connections? Is google search a hindrance (all sorts of folks think they can just find related articles and post them as fact like me)?

Also yes, we know that a divorce would be easier and have already stated that we will do so as a last resort. Divorce is still a scary word.
Now we're back to "Neither of you planned to HAVE children"
 

mistoffolees

Senior Member
Also yes, we know that a divorce would be easier and have already stated that we will do so as a last resort. Divorce is still a scary word.
You're trying to go down a route which probably won't be successful, will cost you more money, will take you more time, and will have the same end result - because 'divorce is a scary word'.

Get over it.
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top