PLa2763
Beatriz S. IRVING v. Gilbert J. IRVING
No. 44142
May 25, 2006
Facts
After meeting through a pen pal service, appellant Beatriz S. Irving, who was living in the Philippines, and respondent Gilbert J. Irving, who was living in the United States, exchanged love letters and telephone calls for nearly ten years. In 2002, Gilbert obtained government approval for Beatriz to immigrate to the United States. The parties married therafter. From June 2002 to October 2002, the parties lived together as husband and wife. During the time, Beatriz never became pregnant despite the couple’s continued efforts. In October 2002, Beatriz was diagnosed with tuberculosis and moved out of Gilbert’s residence, in part because Gilbert was concerned that the disease was contagious. In November 2002; Gilbert filed a complaint for annulment, alleging that Beatriz had misrepresented that she wanted to conceive his child.
Procedural History
After a bench trial, the district court noted that the case was “very close” but ordered on annulment for fraud based on its findings that Gilbert had relied on Beatriz’s representations that she would conceive his child and that there were no “allegations of the normal reasons as to why parties separate.” This appeal followed.
Issue
Whether Gilbert was required to prove fraud by clear and convincing evidence and failed to meet that burden?
Holdings
Reverse of the district court’s order
Rationale
A party seeking on annulment for fraud under NRS 125.340(1) must prove fraud by clear and convincing evidence. The district court abused its discretion in ordering the parties marriage to be annulled since the record contains no substantial evidence of fraud.
No. 44142
May 25, 2006
Facts
After meeting through a pen pal service, appellant Beatriz S. Irving, who was living in the Philippines, and respondent Gilbert J. Irving, who was living in the United States, exchanged love letters and telephone calls for nearly ten years. In 2002, Gilbert obtained government approval for Beatriz to immigrate to the United States. The parties married therafter. From June 2002 to October 2002, the parties lived together as husband and wife. During the time, Beatriz never became pregnant despite the couple’s continued efforts. In October 2002, Beatriz was diagnosed with tuberculosis and moved out of Gilbert’s residence, in part because Gilbert was concerned that the disease was contagious. In November 2002; Gilbert filed a complaint for annulment, alleging that Beatriz had misrepresented that she wanted to conceive his child.
Procedural History
After a bench trial, the district court noted that the case was “very close” but ordered on annulment for fraud based on its findings that Gilbert had relied on Beatriz’s representations that she would conceive his child and that there were no “allegations of the normal reasons as to why parties separate.” This appeal followed.
Issue
Whether Gilbert was required to prove fraud by clear and convincing evidence and failed to meet that burden?
Holdings
Reverse of the district court’s order
Rationale
A party seeking on annulment for fraud under NRS 125.340(1) must prove fraud by clear and convincing evidence. The district court abused its discretion in ordering the parties marriage to be annulled since the record contains no substantial evidence of fraud.