## Facts

- William Jerry Blair (Husband) and Nancy Blair (Wife) married in December 1980.
- Before the marriage, Wife had a son, Devin (born April 1977), conceived during a period in which Wife had relationships with multiple men, including Husband.
- In 1979, Wife told Husband that Devin was Husband’s child; the relationship resumed, Wife later became pregnant by Husband, and the parties had a daughter, Oralin (born March 1980).
- After Wife’s divorce from a prior spouse was finalized, she married Husband; Husband later adopted both Devin and Oralin.
- In 2001, Wife filed for dissolution; Husband sought an annulment, alleging he was fraudulently induced to marry by Wife’s representation that he fathered Devin.
- Genetic testing later showed Devin’s biological father was another man.
- The trial court denied annulment and entered a dissolution judgment, finding Wife believed Husband was Devin’s father and that Husband would have married Wife even if he had known Devin was not his biological child.

## Issues

1. Whether Wife’s pre-marital representation about Devin’s paternity constituted fraud sufficient to annul the marriage.
2. Whether Husband proved the elements of fraudulent inducement, including a knowingly false (or recklessly made) material misrepresentation and actual reliance that caused the marriage.
3. Whether the trial court’s findings on Wife’s intent and Husband’s reliance were unsupported by substantial evidence, against the weight of the evidence, or based on legal error.

## Decision

- The Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District, affirmed the judgment denying annulment and granting dissolution.
- The court held substantial evidence supported findings that Wife believed Husband was Devin’s father when she made the representation.
- The court held substantial evidence supported findings that Husband did not prove he relied on the paternity representation as an inducing cause of the marriage, including that he would have married Wife regardless.
- Applying deferential review in a court-tried case, the court declined to reweigh credibility or substitute its view of motive for the trial court’s.

## Legal Principles

- Annulment based on fraud requires proof of a material misrepresentation going to essentials of the marriage relationship, made with intent to deceive (or comparable fault), and actually relied upon as an inducing cause of the marriage.
- A party seeking annulment must show causation: the marriage would not have occurred but for the alleged fraud.
- Whether a spouse actually relied on a representation in deciding to marry is a question of fact for the trial court; appellate review is deferential and does not reweigh credibility.
- A misstatement or mistaken belief about paternity is not, by itself, dispositive; the claimant must prove the representation’s materiality and its actual causal effect on the decision to marry.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed denial of annulment because Husband did not prove fraudulent inducement: the evidence supported that Wife did not knowingly misrepresent paternity and, in any event, Husband failed to show he married in reliance on the paternity claim as the cause of the marriage.


Blair v. Blair, 147 S.W.3d 882 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004)