Irving v. Irving
122 Nev. Adv. Rep. 44, 122 Nev. 494, 134 P.3d 718 (2006)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A party seeking to annul a marriage on the grounds of fraud under Nevada statute NRS 125.340(1) must prove the fraud by the heightened evidentiary standard of clear and convincing evidence.
Facts:
- Beatriz S. Irving, living in the Philippines, and Gilbert J. Irving, living in the United States, met through a pen pal service and corresponded for nearly ten years.
- Gilbert visited Beatriz twice in the Philippines; after the first visit, Beatriz told him she had been pregnant with his child but had a miscarriage.
- In 2002, Gilbert arranged for Beatriz to immigrate to the United States, and they married shortly after her arrival.
- The couple lived together as husband and wife from June to October 2002 and regularly attempted to conceive a child without success.
- Beatriz, age forty-two at the time, testified that she believed conceiving was difficult due to her age but that she was capable.
- In October 2002, Beatriz was diagnosed with tuberculosis.
- Beatriz moved out of Gilbert's residence, in part because Gilbert expressed concern that her tuberculosis was contagious.
- Gilbert testified that having a child was not his primary reason for marrying Beatriz and that he would have married her even if he knew she was infertile.
Procedural Posture:
- Gilbert J. Irving filed a complaint for annulment against Beatriz S. Irving in a Nevada district court (trial court).
- After a bench trial, the district court found in favor of Gilbert and ordered a decree of annulment.
- Beatriz S. Irving (appellant) appealed the district court's decision to the Supreme Court of Nevada.
- Gilbert J. Irving is the respondent in the 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 party seeking an annulment of a marriage on the basis of fraud under NRS 125.340(1) need to prove that fraud by clear and convincing evidence?
Opinions:
Majority - Hardesty, J.
Yes, a party seeking an annulment for fraud must prove the fraud by clear and convincing evidence. The court found that the governing statute, NRS 125.340(1), was ambiguous regarding the required burden of proof because the phrase 'and fraud has been proved' is susceptible to multiple interpretations. Given the ambiguity and the lack of legislative history, the court looked to reason and public policy. Citing the strong public policy in favor of marriage, the court concluded that a heightened evidentiary standard is necessary to prevent marriages from being easily dissolved. This standard aligns with the 'clear and convincing' evidence required for other annulment proceedings (e.g., for intoxication) and for common law fraud torts in Nevada. Applying this standard, the court found no substantial evidence to support the annulment, as Gilbert failed to prove Beatriz misrepresented her ability or desire to have children; in fact, his own testimony weakened his claim.
Analysis:
This case establishes a significant precedent in Nevada family law by formally setting the evidentiary standard for annulment based on fraud to 'clear and convincing evidence.' This decision elevates the burden of proof from the typical civil standard ('preponderance of the evidence'), making it more difficult to obtain an annulment on fraud grounds. By doing so, the court reinforces the strong public policy favoring the preservation of marriage. This ruling will guide lower courts and require future litigants seeking such annulments to present much stronger, more persuasive evidence of a fraudulent inducement to marry.
Unlock the full brief for Irving v. Irving