Meagher v. Maleki
31 Cal.Rptr.3d 663, 131 Cal. App. 4th 1 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An annulment of marriage on the basis of fraud in California may only be granted in extreme cases where the particular fraud goes to the very essence of the marriage relation, typically involving the sexual or procreative aspects of marriage, and not merely misrepresentations concerning financial worth or prospects.
Facts:
- In October 1997, Ann Marie Meagher, a psychiatrist, met Malekpour Maleki, a real estate broker and investor, and they developed a romantic relationship.
- Meagher believed Maleki to be a well-educated millionaire with expertise in real estate and finance.
- In February 1998, they became engaged and also entered into a business relationship, during which Meagher bought three residential properties as an investment, two directly from Maleki with his unfulfilled promise of reimbursement.
- In December 1998, Meagher and Maleki entered into a handwritten agreement stating the properties were owned 50/50 and all costs shared equally.
- In May 1999, they entered into a second handwritten agreement establishing a 50/50 real estate business venture, with Maleki solely responsible for operation, and Meagher holding title to all properties, including a recently purchased commercial shopping center funded by her property sales.
- On August 28, 1999, Meagher and Maleki married, already living together, and Meagher continued to draw from her retirement savings to fund additional real estate investments for their venture.
- In February 2002, Maleki informed Meagher they lacked sufficient funds for living and business expenses, including a large tax bill, causing Meagher to doubt his financial claims and business management.
- In April 2002, Maleki demanded Meagher put all her assets, including her home and pension, into joint tenancy and give him total control, threatening divorce if she refused, which led Meagher to suspect he had married her for her money.
Procedural Posture:
- Meagher filed a petition for dissolution of marriage in the trial court in May 2002, requesting various items of real property be confirmed as her separate property.
- On November 4, 2002, Meagher filed a motion for summary adjudication seeking an annulment of her marriage and restitution of property, which the trial court denied.
- After protracted pretrial and trial proceedings, the trial court entered a judgment of nullity (annulment) on January 21, 2004, finding fraud and determining all assets at issue were Meagher's sole and separate property, and ordering Maleki to repay temporary spousal support and interim attorney fees.
- Maleki timely appealed the judgment of nullity to the California Court of Appeal (Maleki is the appellant, Meagher is the appellee).
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 prospective spouse's fraudulent misrepresentation of financial status and intent to exploit the other spouse's assets constitute fraud going to the 'very essence of the marriage relation' sufficient to warrant an annulment under California law?
Opinions:
Majority - Ruvolo, J.
No, a prospective spouse's fraud regarding financial matters, even when coupled with an intent to gain control of the other spouse's assets, does not constitute fraud going to the 'very essence of the marriage relation' sufficient for annulment under California law. California law has long held that annulment for fraud is reserved for 'extreme cases' where the fraud relates to matters 'vital to the marriage relationship,' traditionally encompassing the sexual or procreative aspects of marriage. The court cited examples such as a secret intention not to engage in sexual relations, concealment of pregnancy by another, or undisclosed sterility. The court noted that misrepresentations regarding 'character, habits, chastity, business or social standing, financial worth or prospects' are generally not considered sufficient grounds for annulment, citing cases like Marshall v. Marshall (misrepresentation of wealth) and Mayer v. Mayer (misrepresentation of business ownership) where annulments were denied. While acknowledging Douglass v. Douglass granted annulment for a husband's concealed criminal record and failure to support children, the court distinguished it by highlighting the 'nexus with the child-rearing aspect of marriage' relevant to the wife's intent. The court concluded that no California or other authority supports granting an annulment based on purely financial fraud, and therefore, the fraud established in this case, as a matter of law, was not of the type that constitutes an adequate basis for granting an annulment.
Analysis:
This case significantly reinforces the narrow scope of fraud claims that can support an annulment in California, clearly distinguishing between fraud sufficient to rescind a contract and fraud vital to the marital relationship itself. By explicitly rejecting financial misrepresentation as grounds for annulment, even in cases of malicious intent to exploit assets, the court underscores the state's interest in the stability of marital status and limits annulment to deceptions that fundamentally undermine core marital functions like sexual relations, procreation, or cohabitation. This ruling means that parties defrauded financially in a marriage are generally restricted to dissolution proceedings and contract remedies for property division and restitution, rather than the more drastic remedy of annulment which voids the marriage from its inception.
