In Re Marriage of Rabie
115 Cal. Rptr. 594, 40 Cal. App. 3d 917, 1974 Cal. App. LEXIS 916 (1974)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A marriage is voidable for fraud if one party's consent was induced by a secret intention, held at the time of the marriage, not to fulfill marital duties but solely to gain an advantage inherent in the marital state, such as a change in immigration status.
Facts:
- In February 1970, Manuchehr, an Iranian citizen, proposed to Delia Lopez after confirming she was a U.S. citizen, but the relationship ended when he became impatient with the time her divorce would take.
- On April 4, 1970, Manuchehr met Judith at a bus stop, confirmed she was a U.S. citizen, and proposed to her that same day.
- On April 11, 1970, Manuchehr and Judith were married in Las Vegas after his friends persuaded her to marry him immediately.
- Immediately after the wedding, Judith was instructed to apply for a 'green card' for Manuchehr, which was only available to him if he were married to a U.S. citizen.
- During their six-month marriage, a child was conceived, but before receiving his green card, Manuchehr told Delia Lopez he only married Judith, whom he called a 'fat pig', to get the card and did not love her.
- After Manuchehr received his green card in late October 1970, the marriage quickly deteriorated, with violent fights initiated by him.
- Approximately three weeks after receiving the card, Judith ordered Manuchehr to leave their home, and he immediately began living with Delia Lopez.
Procedural Posture:
- Judith Rabie filed an action in the trial court seeking to have her marriage to Manuchehr Rabie adjudged a nullity on the ground of fraud.
- The trial court found that Manuchehr had fraudulently induced Judith into marriage solely to change his immigration status and obtain a 'green card.'
- The trial court entered a judgment declaring the marriage a nullity.
- Manuchehr (appellant) appealed the trial court's judgment to the intermediate appellate court.
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 secret intention to marry solely to obtain a permanent resident alien card ('green card'), without any intent to fulfill the lifelong duties of marriage, constitute fraud sufficient to grant a judgment of nullity?
Opinions:
Majority - Cobey, J.
Yes, a spouse's secret intention to marry solely for an immigration benefit without intending to fulfill marital duties constitutes fraud sufficient for a judgment of nullity. The court found substantial evidence that Manuchehr never intended to perform his marital duties but rather assumed the relationship with the sole intent of gaining a 'green card.' Marital duties extend beyond mere cohabitation and sexual relations to include sympathy, confidence, fidelity, and the commitment to a lifelong union. The evidence, including his prior attempt to marry another U.S. citizen, his statements to Ms. Lopez disparaging his wife, and the rapid deterioration of the marriage immediately after he received the card, strongly supported the inference that he entered the marriage with a deceitful plan that defeated the essential purposes of the marriage. The court also rejected the argument that Judith had ratified the marriage, finding she did not have full knowledge of the fraud until after they had separated.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the principle that fraud sufficient for annulment must go to the 'essence' of the marital relationship. It clarifies that a secret intention not to be a genuine marital partner, but rather to use the marriage for a collateral purpose like immigration benefits, constitutes such essential fraud. The case is significant for establishing that a party's entire course of conduct before, during, and after the marriage can be used as circumstantial evidence to prove fraudulent intent at the time of the marriage. This precedent is frequently cited in cases involving 'green card' marriage fraud, distinguishing them from cases of misrepresentation about personal qualities like wealth or character, which are typically insufficient for annulment.
