Opinion
No. FA 05 4003420
March 27, 2006
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
This is an action for annulment of a marriage on the grounds of alleged fraud.
Specifically, the plaintiff alleges that the defendant fraudulently concealed matters relating to his health and finances. The issue before the court is whether this marriage is voidable based upon the reasons claimed by the plaintiff.
Connecticut General Statutes § 46b-40(b) provides: "An annulment shall be granted if the marriage is void or voidable under the laws of this state or of the state in which the marriage was performed." An annulment and a dissolution are fundamentally different in that "[a]n annulment renders the marriage void ab initio [from its inception] while a dissolution is based upon a valid marriage which terminates as of the date of the judgment of dissolution." Durham v. Miceli, 15 Conn.App. 96, 543 A.2d 286 (1988). "Neither the ninety-day period specified in [§ 46b-67(b)] nor the six-month period referred to in section 46b-53 shall apply in actions for annulment and the court may proceed on any cause of action for annulment in the manner generally applicable in civil actions." Brennauer v. Brennauer, Superior Court, judicial district of New London at Norwich, Docket No. FA 02 0124680 (November 14, 2002, Austin, J.).
"It is the well-established law of this state that no marriage performed in this state is to be held void or voidable except for some ground recognized at common law or for some ground which a statute expressly provides shall be ground for annulment." Manning v. Manning, 16 Conn.Sup. 461 (1950). "In general, common law grounds have been incorporated in our statutes . . . There are statutory grounds for annulment. General Statutes § 46b-21 (Marriage of certain kindred); § 46b-22 (Marriage attempted to be celebrated by persons other than those listed); § CT Page 6469 46b-24 (Marriage performed in Connecticut without a marriage license); § 46b-29 (Marriage of persons under conservatorship or guardianship); § 46b-30 (Marriage of minors); § 46b-48 (Conviction of an offense against chastity)." Ross v. Ross, Superior Court, judicial district of Stamford-Norwalk at Stamford) Docket No. FA 97 0162587 (August 10, 1998, Tierney, J.) ( 22 Conn. L. Rptr. 637, 638). None of the common-law or statutory grounds were pled or alleged by the plaintiff.
"The ecclesiastical courts of England treated marriage in the same manner as the Roman Catholic Church had done for centuries (i.e. a valid marriage once entered into was indissoluble). There was no divorce under ecclesiastical law, but rather, certain grounds were recognized as "canonical disabilities" which entitled the parties to an annulment of the marriage. These disabilities had to exist at the time of the wedding ceremony and only this type of annulment enabled the parties to remarry within the embrace of the Church.
"Among the disabilities recognized under ecclesiastical law were consanguinity and affinity and impotence. With the onset of the temporal courts after the abolition of jurisdiction of the Church over domestic matters, additional grounds were recognized as nullifying a marriage, such as the existence of a prior marriage, lunacy, and other incapacities which were recognized through the experience of decisional law. There was no divorce for grounds arising after marriage either under English common law or under the early law of the United States." 1 Family Law and Practice (A. Rutkin ed., 2003) § 501[2], pp. 5-2, 5-3 n. 5.
"It is the plaintiff's burden of proof to prove the grounds for annulment . . . A petition for the annulment of a marriage . . . requires of the court . . . great caution and demands clear proof . . . It must find that the conditions leading up to and surrounding the marriage have been established by clear and convincing evidence to be such as to render the marriage void or voidable . . . An annulment is not favored." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 641; see also DaSilva v. DaSilva, Superior Court, judicial district of New Haven, Docket No. FA 02 0470290 (April 21, 2003, Frankel, J.).
In the present case, the plaintiff is claiming that the defendant represented to her before the marriage that he would be able to secure full-time work to help support her and her three children (from her previous marriage), and that such fraudulent representation was the inducing cause of the marriage. Although the plaintiff was aware of the defendant's previous problems with his back due to a military injury, she avers that the defendant failed to inform her of the severity of his back injury which the defendant now claims is affecting his ability to work full-time. "Misrepresentations with respect to a prospective spouse's health and fitness do not offer ground for annulment of the marriage unless they involve the essentialia to the marital relation, such as a physical impediment making impossible the performance of the duties and obligations of the relation or rendering its assumption and continuance dangerous to the health of the other spouse or capable of affecting the health of their offspring." Nerini v. Nerini, 11 Conn.Sup. 361 (1943) (O'Sullivan, J.).
In Nerini, the plaintiff sought an annulment on the ground that her husband had fraudulently represented his physical condition to her, thereby inducing her to wed him. One week after the marriage, the defendant husband was diagnosed with chronic osteomyelitis, a condition which affected the bones of his hip and ankle. Denying the plaintiff's request for an annulment, the court held that: "[i]f every misrepresentation made by the wooer or the wooed were to pave the way to a courthouse for a disappointed spouse suddenly made aware of unsuspected and deliberately concealed frailties of the other, society would indeed have reached a pretty pass. Shall the wife be entitled to nullify her solemnly accepted status if, forsooth, in the face of previous protestations to the contrary, her husband reveals himself as the possessor of a bewitching glass eye or a set of pearly false teeth, or shall to the husband be extended a similar privilege if his once gorgeous blonde has mysteriously gone brunette? Of course not, for such fraud has not the slightest bearing on the objectives of matrimony . . . Fraudulent misrepresentations . . . as to birth, social position, fortune, good health, and temperament, cannot therefore vitiate the contract. Caveat emptor [let the buyer beware] is the harsh but necessary maxim of the law." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 364-65.
In the present case, the plaintiff has not established facts which would support the annulment of her marriage to the defendant. The misrepresentations claimed by the plaintiff do not fall within the ambit of statutory or common-law exceptions that would allow the annulment of her marriage.
Therefore, based on the foregoing reasons, the court finds that this marriage, though imperfect, is dissoluble rather than null and void. Accordingly, the plaintiff's petition for an annulment of the marriage is denied. The parties are ordered to file a case management report within two weeks.