Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County No. SD020782, Craig D. Karlan, Judge.
Law Office of Bruce Cormicle and Bruce Cormicle for Appellant.
Barbara Ann Butler, in pro. per., for Respondent.
ASHMANN-GERST, J.
Steven Chris Mayas (Mayas) appeals from a trial court judgment that nullified his marriage to respondent Barbara A. Butler (Butler) on the grounds of fraud.
Because substantial evidence supports the judgment, we affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Mayas is French Polynesian. He and Butler met in January 1999 in Los Angeles. While their relationship began as a business venture, Mayas eventually proposed. The parties married on April 29, 2001.
On February 14, 2003, Butler filed a petition for dissolution of marriage based upon irreconcilable differences. She later filed an amended petition, again based upon irreconcilable differences.
After hearing that Mayas had only married her so that he could obtain a green card, on June 9, 2003, Butler filed an amended petition for dissolution of marriage, seeking an annulment based upon fraud. Approximately six months later, Butler filed an amended petition for nullity of marriage on the grounds of fraud.
The case proceeded to trial on September 27, 2005, October 21, 2005, and November 10, 2005. At trial, Butler testified that she and Mayas never lived together. She also testified that Mayas did not care for her while she underwent treatment for breast cancer, beginning in September 2001, just a few months after the parties married. In fact, she did not see Mayas between September 2001 and July 2002. However, between July 2002 and December 2002, Mayas and Butler became romantically involved again. Butler even participated in an interview with Mayas with Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) on December 5, 2002, because she believed that she and Mayas were back together.
Brian Dozier (Dozier), Mayas’s roommate, testified as well. According to Dozier, Butler and Mayas’s marriage “had something to do with immigration.” After Butler and Mayas married, he did not move in with her; instead, he continued to reside with Dozier.
In addition, Butler offered the testimony of Joni Fay Hill (Hill). Hill testified that she and Mayas married in 1994 to help him get a green card. Eventually, their marriage was nullified.
Mayas testified at the trial too. He stated that he married Butler because he loved her. Disputing the testimony of Dozier and others, Mayas claimed that he did live with Butler after they married. He also asserted that he did not marry Hill for a green card.
Mayas did not recall receiving a letter from his immigration attorney in July 2002, regarding correspondence from INS that set an appointment for an interview for December 5, 2002.
At the time of trial, Mayas was engaged to yet another woman, Joni Taylor.
The trial court took the matter under submission, and on January 27, 2006, granted Butler’s amended petition for nullity of marriage. The trial court found that the parties “did not cohabitate at any time during the marriage, nor based on the evidence, was it [Mayas’s] intention to do so at the time of marriage.” Rather, after the marriage, Mayas continued to reside with his former roommate. In addition, the trial court determined that Mayas “did not offer his sympathy, confidence and fidelity to [Butler], especially while she underwent treatment for cancer shortly after their marriage.” In support of its findings, the trial court noted that Mayas’s testimony regarding his marriage to Hill was not credible. It also determined that Mayas “had minimal contact with” Butler, “including no contact from September 15, 2001 until July 27, 2002.” However, after Mayas received correspondence from INS in July 2002, he “spent a great deal of time with” Butler until shortly after an interview with INS on December 5, 2002.
Judgment was entered, and Mayas’s timely appeal ensued.
DISCUSSION
The principal thrust of Mayas’s argument on appeal is that the trial court erred in nullifying the parties’ marriage under Family Code section 2210, subdivision (d). He insists that the evidence does not support the trial court’s determination that Mayas fraudulently induced Butler to marry him. We conclude otherwise; substantial evidence supports the trial court’s judgment nullifying the parties’ marriage. (In re Marriage of Rabie (1974) 40 Cal.App.3d 917, 921 (Rabie).)
Family Code section 2210 provides: “A marriage is voidable and may be adjudged a nullity if . . . the following condition[] existed at the time of the marriage: [¶] . . . [¶] (d) The consent of either party was obtained by fraud, unless the party whose consent was obtained by fraud afterwards, with full knowledge of the facts constituting the fraud, freely cohabitated with the other as husband or wife.” (Fam. Code, § 2210, subd. (d).)
Annulment is considered an extreme remedy. Thus, the showing of fraud necessary to warrant nullification is “‘not merely such fraud as would be sufficient to rescind an ordinary civil contract.’ [Citations.]” (Williams v. Williams (1960) 178 Cal.App.2d 522, 525.) Rather, to void a marriage, the fraud alleged in a nullification proceeding requires a showing of an intention not to perform a duty vital to the marriage, which exists in the offending spouse’s mind at the moment the marriage contract is made. (Bruce v. Bruce (1945) 71 Cal.App.2d 641, 643.) In other words, the fraud must “go to the very essence of the marital relation.” (In re Marriage of Johnston (1993) 18 Cal.App.4th 499, 500.) For this reason, historically, annulments based on fraud have generally only been granted in cases where the fraud relates in some way to the sexual, procreative or child-rearing aspects of marriage. (In re Marriage of Meagher & Maleki (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 1, 7–8 (Meagher & Maleki); Millar v. Millar (1917) 175 Cal. 797.) This includes the secret intention of a person never to live with his or her spouse. (Meagher & Maleki, supra, at p. 7.)
However, annulments based upon fraud are not limited to such situations. For example, in Rabie, supra, 40 Cal.App.3d 917, the Court of Appeal affirmed a judgment of nullity where substantial evidence supported the trial court’s finding that a man fraudulently induced his wife to marry him solely to obtain a green card, not to fulfill his marital duties to her. (Id. at pp. 922–923.)
In the instant case, substantial evidence supports the trial court’s determination that Mayas fraudulently induced Butler to marry him. They did not cohabitate at any time during the marriage; nor did Mayas intend to do so at the time of the marriage. (Meagher & Maleki, supra, 131 Cal.App.4th at p. 7.) Moreover, Mayas did not offer his sympathy, confidence, and fidelity to Butler, particularly while she underwent treatment for breast cancer shortly after they married. (Rabie, supra, 40 Cal.App.3d at p. 922.)
Rather, the evidence all points towards the conclusion that Mayas married Butler solely to obtain a green card, the same reason he apparently married Hill. “Where fraud is so grievous that it places the injured party in an intolerable relationship, it robs the marital contract of all validity.” (Rabie, supra, 40 Cal.App.3d at p. 922.) The evidence here supports the judgment of nullity.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed. Butler is entitled to costs on appeal.
We concur: DOI TODD, Acting P. J., CHAVEZ, J.