Love, undone by Katy Gronowski
Divorces are easy to come by. Annulments, not so much. Any seasoned family law attorney will tell you that prevailing on a petition for nullity of a marriage is predicated on good fortune. One must be blessed with a trinity of the right facts, the right law and the right judge. A recent appellate case on annulment is In Re Marriage of GoodwinMitchell and Mitchell, (2019) 40 Cal. App.5th 232. This case brings to mind the wisdom of songstress Taylor Swift who cautioned, “I think I’ve seen this film before, and I didn’t like the ending….”
First, the law:
While there are only two grounds to dissolve a marriage in California; irreconcilable differences and incurable insanity, there are many grounds to nullify a marriage. These grounds are listed in Family Code section 2210 and include incest, bigamy, minority, prior existing marriage, unsound mind, fraud, force and incapacity. The Goodwin-Mitchell case was decided on the ground of fraud. Family Code section 2210(d) provides that a marriage is voidable and may be adjudged a nullity if the consent of either party was obtained by fraud. However, the defrauded spouse may not obtain an annulment on the ground of fraud if he or she freely cohabited with the offending spouse after gaining full knowledge of the facts constituting the fraud. Fraud must be shown
by clear and convincing evidence. The fraud must directly defeat the marriage relationship. In re Marriage of Ramirez (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 751, sheds light on what constitutes fraud. Ramirez found that a fraudulent intent not to perform a vital marital duty must exist in the mind of the offending spouse at the time that the parties marry. Similarly, a fraudulent intent to be unfaithful held by a spouse at the time of the marriage may support an annulment. As a further example, In re Marriage of Liu, (1987) 197 Cal.App.3d 143, held that annulments could be based on a party’s concealed intent to marry with the sole intent of obtaining a green card.
And then the facts:
Carolyn Goodwin-Mitchell helped her first husband, a foreign national, obtain permanent residency in the United States. However, that marriage ended in divorce. After her divorce from her first husband, Carolyn “met” online another gentleman, Michael, also from overseas. They “began dating over the internet.” Michael had big plans and Carolyn was game once again to be swept off her feet by a stranger. Michael told Carolyn that “he wanted to move to the United States so he could live with her, open a restaurant, and join the U.S. Army.” In June 2015, Carolyn traveled abroad to meet
Continued on page 24
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION CONTRA COSTA LAWYER
23
