Opinion ID: 1433913
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: plaintiff states a claim for fraudulent inducement to marry

Text: ¶ 38 An action for damages for fraudulent inducement to marry has been recognized in Oklahoma with respect to both void and valid marriages. [51] Like other fraud-based actions, a claim for fraudulent inducement to marry must allege all the elements of common law fraud. These are: 1) a false material representation, 2) made as a positive assertion which is either known to be false, or made recklessly without knowledge of the truth, 3) with the intention that it be acted upon, and 4) which is relied upon by a party to that party's detriment. [52] The requirement that the false representation be material is easily met where the person misrepresents that he or she has the capacity to marry when in fact he or she lacks such capacity, as in the case of bigamy. We have held in that circumstance that the marriage is void and that the injured party can have the marriage annulled or can seek a divorce and damages for fraud. [53] ¶ 39 The only case decided by this court in which a party has alleged fraudulent inducement into a valid marriage is Tice v. Tice, [54] in which we held that a husband's alleged breach of a prenuptial oral promise to reimburse any lost alimony which the wife would have received under a previous divorce decree had she not remarried entitled the wife to recover damages to compensate her for the lost alimony. The court stated that insofar as property interests are concerned, marriage is founded on business principles, and marital fraud affecting a plaintiff's property interests should be treated no differently than fraud in any other context. While the court in Tice did not explicitly discuss the materiality of the fraudulent promise in that case, implicit in its holding is the principle that a misrepresentation affecting property interests which induces a party to marry can be a material misrepresentation. This court has never had occasion to consider the materiality of a misrepresentation made to induce a party to enter into a valid marriage, which affects an interest other than a party's property interest. The present case presents this issue. ¶ 40 We hold that a misrepresentation inducing one to enter into a valid marriage must go to the essential ingredients of the marriage in order to sustain a finding of materiality sufficient to support a cause of action for fraudulent inducement to marry. This is a necessary restriction. Every premarital representation of boundless affection, eternal love, and endless commitment cannot be allowed to give rise to an action for fraud when a marriage breaks down, and love and commitment prove unenduring. Limiting materiality to those representations which go to the essence of the marital relationship will avoid misuse of the judicial system to avenge hurt feelings and disappointed dreams. ¶ 41 The question here is whether the defendants' misrepresentation concerning plaintiff's paternity is material. Does it go to the essence of the marital relationship? In this regard, it is useful to consider those cases in which an annulment has been granted based upon a claim of fraudulent inducement to marry. These cases are instructive because they deal with whether a fraud is sufficiently material to vitiate the marriage contract. If a claim of fraud is sufficient to support an annulment, then it ought to be sufficient to support an action for damages where an annulment is unavailable because the marriage has already been dissolved by divorce. [55] ¶ 42 Misrepresentations which have been found to go to the essence of the marital relationship, generally in an action for annulment, include concealment of the fact that one party was suffering from syphilis, [56] concealment by the husband that he lacked the physical and mental capacity to engage in normal sexual relations with his wife, [57] concealment of the fact that one party married the other for the sole purpose of obtaining a green card from the Immigration Department, [58] concealment of a former narcotics addiction and a prior criminal record, [59] concealment of heroin addiction, [60] and concealment of a criminal record and a false representation that joint funds were being used for child support when they were really being used to pay fines and restitution. [61] ¶ 43 Misrepresentations which have been found not to be essential to the purposes of the marriage relationship include: misrepresentation of affection, [62] concealment of lesbian activities and drug use prior to marriage, [63] concealment of prior marriage and divorce, [64] concealment of the fact that inheriting the property of the spouse at death was the motive for the marriage, [65] and concealment of a misdemeanor narcotics conviction coupled with a periodic, but not consistent, disabling narcotics addiction. [66] ¶ 44 Cases involving misrepresentations of pregnancy fall into two categories. One category consists of a false claim of a pregnancy which the woman knows does not in fact exist. Relief has been denied under these circumstances on the ground that a false representation of pregnancy does not go to the essence of the marital relationship because it does not prevent the future performance of the marital obligation to bear only the children of the spouse. [67] The other category consists of a true claim of an existing pregnancy coupled with a false representation that the prospective spouse is the child's father when in fact the father of the child is known or suspected to be another man. The majority of cases, especially those decided since the turn of the century, have held that such fraud goes to the essence of the marital relationship and vitiates the marriage contract. [68] ¶ 45 We hold that a true claim of an existing pregnancy coupled with a false representation that the child is that of the prospective spouse goes to the essentials of the marital relationship and will support an action based on fraud. [69]