In Re Marriage of Johnston

California Court of Appeal
22 Cal. Rptr. 2d 253, 18 Cal. App. 4th 499, 93 Daily Journal DAR 11101 (1993)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

For a marriage to be annulled on the basis of fraud, the fraud must go to the very essence of the marital relationship. Misrepresentations regarding a spouse's character, temperament, habits, or financial status are insufficient grounds for an annulment.

Facts:

Before their marriage, Donald R. Johnston presented himself to Brenda Johnston as polite, clean-shaven, and respectful.
Donald told Brenda he intended to find employment and build a life with her.
After the 20-month marriage began, Brenda discovered that Donald had a severe drinking problem, refused to work, and became disrespectful and unkempt.
Brenda also found their post-marriage sex life to be unsatisfactory.
During the marriage, Brenda executed an interspousal deed, transferring title to real property she had owned prior to the marriage into both her and Donald's names.

Procedural Posture:

Brenda Johnston petitioned the trial court to annul her marriage to Donald R. Johnston on the grounds of fraud.
Donald Johnston responded by requesting a judgment of dissolution instead of an annulment.
The trial court found in favor of Brenda, ruling her consent was obtained by fraud and entered a judgment annulling the marriage.
The trial court also declared an interspousal property deed to be null and void based on the annulment.
Donald Johnston (appellant) appealed the trial court's judgment of nullity and the property disposition 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 post-marriage revelation of undesirable personal traits, such as a severe drinking problem, refusal to work, and poor hygiene, constitute fraud that goes to the 'very essence' of the marital relation, thereby justifying an annulment?

Opinions:

Majority - Sonenshine, J.

No. A spouse's post-marriage revelation of undesirable personal traits does not constitute fraud sufficient for an annulment because it does not go to the 'very essence' of the marital relation. The court reasoned that under California law, the standard for annulment based on fraud is exceptionally high. Citing precedent like Marshall v. Marshall, the court held that the concealment of negative traits such as 'incontinence, temper, idleness, extravagance, coldness or fortune inadequate to representations' is not sufficient. The court found that Donald's transformation into a 'lazy, unshaven disappointment with a drinking problem' was less severe than misrepresentations about wealth or business ownership that were previously deemed insufficient for annulment in other cases. Therefore, the fraud alleged by Brenda does not undermine the fundamental consent to marry, and the proper legal remedy is dissolution, not nullity.

Analysis:

This decision reinforces the high legal threshold required to obtain an annulment for fraud in California, distinguishing it sharply from grounds for dissolution. The court clarifies that post-marital disappointment with a spouse's character, habits, or financial prospects, even if stemming from pre-marital misrepresentations, does not affect the validity of the marriage itself. This precedent solidifies the 'essence of the marriage' doctrine, limiting annulments to cases where the fraud pertains to the core components of the marital union, such as the ability or intent to engage in sexual relations or cohabitate. It directs parties with grievances about personal qualities or broken promises toward dissolution, thereby preserving the legal distinction between a voidable marriage and a valid but failed one.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: In Re Marriage of Johnston (1993)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature