Blair v. Blair
2004 WL 2513740, 2004 Mo. App. LEXIS 1685, 147 S.W.3d 882 (2004)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To obtain an annulment of a marriage on the grounds of fraud, the fraudulent misrepresentation must be material to the plaintiff's decision to enter the marriage. A premarital misrepresentation regarding a child's paternity is not considered material if evidence supports a finding that the plaintiff would have married the defendant regardless of the representation.
Facts:
- In July 1976, William Jerry Blair (Husband) and Nancy Blair (Wife) had sexual intercourse on one occasion while Wife was married to another man.
- On April 26, 1977, Wife gave birth to a son, Devin.
- In January 1979, Wife contacted Husband and told him that he was Devin's father.
- Shortly after this contact, Husband and Wife began a sexual relationship and conceived a child together.
- On March 13, 1980, Wife gave birth to their daughter, Oralin, who was undisputedly Husband's biological child.
- Wife's divorce from her first husband was finalized in December 1980.
- On December 22, 1980, Husband and Wife married, and Husband later adopted Devin.
- Years later, subsequent testing proved that Husband was not Devin's biological father.
Procedural Posture:
- On November 20, 2001, Wife filed a petition for dissolution of marriage against Husband in the Circuit Court of Platte County, a trial court.
- Husband filed a cross-petition, which he later amended to request that the marriage be annulled on the grounds of fraud.
- The trial court heard the matter and on January 8, 2003, entered a judgment denying Husband’s petition for annulment and dissolving the marriage.
- Husband filed a motion for a new trial, which the trial court denied.
- On May 5, 2003, the trial court entered an Amended Judgment and Decree of Dissolution of Marriage, again denying the request for an annulment.
- Husband, as appellant, appealed the trial court's denial of his annulment petition to the Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a pre-marital misrepresentation regarding the paternity of a child constitute fraud sufficient to annul a marriage when evidence suggests the plaintiff would have married the defendant regardless of the child's paternity?
Opinions:
Majority - Joseph M. Ellis
No. A pre-marital misrepresentation regarding a child's paternity does not constitute fraud sufficient to annul a marriage where the representation was not material to the decision to marry. To warrant an annulment, fraud must be vital to the marriage relationship, meaning the party seeking annulment would not have consented to the marriage but for the misrepresentation. The court found sufficient evidence to support the trial court's determination that the Husband would have married the Wife regardless of her representation about Devin's paternity. The court deferred to the trial court's credibility assessment and was not required to accept the Husband's self-serving testimony. Evidence supporting this conclusion included the couple's two-year courtship during which they fell in love, the birth of their undisputed biological daughter nine months before the marriage, and the fact that Husband married Wife despite having his own questions about Devin's paternity.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the high legal standard required to annul a marriage on the basis of fraud, underscoring the strong public policy of preserving marital integrity. It clarifies the legal concept of materiality, distinguishing between a misrepresentation that induces a relationship and one that is the essential basis for the marriage contract itself. The decision also exemplifies the significant deference appellate courts grant to trial courts' factual findings and credibility determinations, particularly in family law cases where the outcome often hinges on the testimony of the parties involved. This precedent makes it more difficult for a party to annul a long-term marriage based on a premarital misrepresentation if other substantial reasons for the marriage existed.
