Opinion
A23-0622
02-08-2024
In re the Marriage of: Christian Reynold Saco, petitioner, Appellant, v. Nayelli Saco Bautista, Respondent.
Hennepin County District Court File No. 27-FA-21-2902
Considered and decided by Connolly, Presiding Judge; Reyes, Judge; and Hooten, Judge. [*]
ORDER OPINION
CAROL A. HOOTEN, JUDGE
BASED ON THE FILE, RECORD, AND PROCEEDINGS, AND BECAUSE:
1. Appellant Christian Reynold Saco seeks review of the district court's denial of his petition for annulment of the parties' marriage and its determination that certain property was nonmarital. Respondent Nayelli Saco Bautista did not file a brief, but this court still considers an appeal on the merits. Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 142.03.
The district court legally changed respondent's name to Nayelli Bautista Sanchez in its judgment.
2. Bautista is a citizen of Mexico. Saco was aware of Bautista's immigration status when the two began dating in 2012, as they met while Bautista was in Texas on a student visa.
3. After seven years together, Saco and Bautista married in 2019; the parties separated in 2021.
4. Saco filed a petition for annulment of marriage without children on June 8, 2021, and Bautista counter-petitioned for dissolution of marriage on June 18, 2021.
5. Saco argued that the parties' marriage should be annulled because it was "voidable" pursuant to Minn. Stat. §§ 518.02, .05 (2022), as Bautista had obtained his consent to marry by fraud "solely to achieve residency and/or citizenship in the United States."
6. The district court held a trial regarding the annulment petition and property distribution of the parties' two cats, Spots and Jeane, in January 2023. The parties agreed to dissolve their marriage if the district court denied Saco's annulment petition.
7. The district court denied Saco's annulment petition and entered a dissolution of marriage judgment and decree in March 2023. The district court's denial was based on its finding that Bautista did not obtain Saco's consent by fraud, but that the two "engaged in a long relationship beginning in 2012, which culminated in marriage," and that any conflict was "typical among couples who marry and endure stressful situation[s]."
8. For purposes of this appeal, we assume that the parties' agreement to dissolve their marriage if the district court denied the annulment petition does not preclude review of the propriety of the denial of the annulment petition. Appellate courts review the district court's findings of fact under a clearly erroneous standard. Goldman v. Greenwood, 748 N.W.2d 279, 284 (Minn. 2008) ("Findings of fact are clearly erroneous where an appellate court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.") (quotation omitted). When applying the clear-error standard of review, appellate courts (1) view the evidence in the light most favorable to the findings, (2) do not reweigh the evidence, (3) do not find their own facts, and (4) do not reconcile conflicting evidence. In re Civ. Commitment of Kenney, 963 N.W.2d 214, 221-22 (Minn. 2021); Bayer v. Bayer, 979 N.W.2d 507, 513 (Minn.App. 2022) (citing Kenney in a family-law appeal).
9. Pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 518.02(a), a marriage may be annulled when the consent of either party "was obtained by force or fraud and there was no subsequent voluntary cohabitation of the parties." Saco argues his consent to marry was obtained by fraud, and that the parties did not voluntarily cohabitate after he discovered the fraud.
10. In the context of annulments, Robertson v. Roth, 204 N.W. 329, 330 (Minn. 1925), defines fraud as a "wholly unexpected" burden or obstacle which destroys "domestic happiness." Concealment of any sort of accidental quality, including "birth, social or financial standing," does not amount to fraud. Wemple v. Wemple, 212 N.W. 808, 809 (Minn. 1927).
11. Citizenship and residency status are a form of "birth" or "social" standing- an insufficient ground for annulment. See id. And here, Saco knew of Bautista's citizenship status before the marriage.
12. As defined in Darrell v. Darrell, 215 N.W.2d 789, 790 (Minn. 1974), "voluntary cohabitation within the meaning of [Minn. Stat. § 518.02] . . . means to live together 'as husband and wife,'" not merely reside in the same household.
13. Contrary to Saco's arguments, the district court found that social media posts in which Bautista refers to Saco as her "roommate" or "partner" were a result of a "difficult" period in the parties' marriage, not a failure to live together as husband and wife. See id.
14. Because Saco failed to demonstrate sufficient evidence of fraud or that the parties failed to cohabitate as husband and wife-Saco "only provided evidence that [Bautista] was unhappy in the marriage"-the district court did not clearly err in ruling that the perquisites for a fraud-based annulment were missing here. Therefore, the district court properly dismissed Saco's petition seeking an annulment based on fraudulent consent under Minn. Stat. § 518.02(a).
15. The district court also found that the parties' two cats, Spots and Jeane, were the nonmarital property of Bautista pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 518.003, subd. 3b(a), (b) (2022), because Bautista received them as a "gift before the marriage."
16. This court reviews de novo whether property is marital or nonmarital, but it gives deference to the district court's underlying findings of fact. Baker v. Baker, 753 N.W.2d 644, 649 (Minn. 2008). If a district court's findings are clearly erroneous, this court may reverse. Olsen v. Olsen, 562 N.W.2d 797, 800 (Minn. 1997).
17. Bautista testified that Saco told her the cats "[were] a gift." The district court made a finding consistent with this testimony: "[Saco] came home when they were living together, but not yet married in July 2016. He had a box with two kittens in it, they were a surprise to [Bautista] and [Saco] said they were a gift to her."
18. The district court found Bautista's testimony that the cats were given to her as a gift more credible than Saco's conflicting testimony, and we defer to the district court's credibility findings. Alam v. Chowdhury, 764 N.W.2d 86, 89 (Minn.App. 2009) (citing Sefkow v. Sefkow, 427 N.W.2d 203, 210 (Minn. 1988)).
19. Bautista kept the cats throughout the marriage, and thus Saco likely intended to fully dispose of them as property through the gift transfer. See Olsen, 562 N.W.2d at 800.
20. When the record reasonably supports the factual findings at issue on appeal it is "immaterial that the record might also provide a reasonable basis for inferences and findings to the contrary." Kenney, 963 N.W.2d at 223 (quotation omitted).
21. The record supports the district court's findings; the cats are the nonmarital property of Bautista.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. The district court's judgment is affirmed.
2. Pursuant to Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c), this order opinion is nonprecedential, except as law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.
[*] Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.