Douglass v. Douglass
1957 Cal. App. LEXIS 2444, 148 Cal. App. 2d 867, 307 p.2d 674 (1957)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A marriage may be annulled for fraud if one party's concealment of their criminal record and grossly deceptive character is so significant that it defeats the essential purpose of the marriage for the innocent spouse, rendering the relationship intolerable.
Facts:
- Russell Douglass represented to Isabelle Krossber Douglass that he was an honest, law-abiding, and respectable man.
- Prior to the marriage, Russell had been convicted of grand theft in Minnesota in 1951, was on parole, and had violated that parole.
- Russell also concealed that he had two children from a previous marriage whom he was failing to support.
- Relying on his representations, Isabelle married him on August 9, 1955.
- Approximately three months after the marriage, law enforcement officers arrested Russell at their home.
- Isabelle then discovered Russell's criminal past, his status as a parole violator, and his deceit regarding his children.
- Upon learning the truth on November 24, 1955, Isabelle immediately separated from Russell and ceased cohabitation.
Procedural Posture:
- Isabelle Krossber Douglass (plaintiff) filed a lawsuit against Russell Douglass (defendant) for annulment in a California trial court.
- The defendant, Russell Douglass, failed to respond to the lawsuit, and a default was entered against him.
- Following a trial where the plaintiff presented evidence, the trial court denied the petition for annulment.
- Isabelle Krossber Douglass (plaintiff-appellant) appealed the trial court's judgment to the California Court of Appeal.
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 spouse's fraudulent concealment of a criminal record, parole violator status, and failure to support children from a prior marriage constitute fraud sufficient to annul the marriage?
Opinions:
Majority - Shinn, P. J.
Yes. A marriage can be annulled when a spouse's fraudulent concealment of their true character is so grievous that it defeats the essential purpose of the marriage for the deceived party. The court reasoned that Isabelle entered the marriage expecting an honorable husband and a suitable stepfather for her children. Russell's concealment of his criminal record, parole violations, and failure to support his own children constituted a deceit so gross that it proved him unworthy of trust and shattered the fundamental expectations of the marital relationship. Forcing Isabelle to remain in such a marriage, which was predicated on a profound deception, would be an 'unjust and intolerable imprisonment' and would defeat the very purpose for which she entered the contract.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies that fraud sufficient for annulment is not limited to misrepresentations about procreation or chastity but extends to deceptions regarding fundamental character and moral integrity. The court established the 'essential purpose' test, creating a precedent that allows annulment when one party's deceit about their criminal past or moral unfitness makes the marital relationship intolerable for the innocent spouse. This expands the grounds for annulment in California and emphasizes the court's role in protecting a deceived party from being trapped in a marriage that fundamentally violates their expectations of trust and honor.
