## Facts

- Leslie Ann Haacke married Mark Mitchell Glenn on December 16, 1989, after a ceremony in Bountiful, Utah.
- At the time of marriage, Haacke worked as an attorney in the Inspector General’s Division of the Utah Department of Corrections and had broad access to criminal records.
- Under state law and Department policy and procedure, Haacke’s marriage to a convicted felon would create a severe conflict of interest and place her in violation of governing rules tied to her employment.
- Before and during the marriage, Glenn deliberately concealed that he had been convicted in Alabama of a second-degree felony (theft of property).
- During the marriage, Glenn made frequent trips to Alabama and used joint funds to pay fines and restitution connected to the felony conviction.
- Glenn told Haacke the trips and payments were for child-support arrearages, not for felony-related obligations.
- In September 1990, Haacke’s employer informed her of Glenn’s criminal record and terminated her employment due to the conflict of interest arising from her marriage to a convicted felon.
- The Department indicated Haacke could be considered for reemployment if the circumstances changed and the conflict was eliminated; it also indicated that ending the marriage by divorce could trigger an investigation into whether Haacke knew of Glenn’s conviction before the marriage.
- Haacke initially filed for divorce, then amended her complaint to seek an annulment. The parties signed a stipulation consenting to entry of an annulment decree.
- After a hearing, the trial court refused to grant the annulment and instead entered a decree of divorce, while finding that Glenn had made fraudulent misrepresentations about his honesty, trustworthiness, and lack of criminal involvement.
- Haacke appealed from the final order denying annulment and granting divorce.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court erred by denying an annulment and granting a divorce where the spouse’s intentional concealment of a felony conviction constituted fraud going to the essence of the marriage.

## Decision

- The Utah Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s order denying annulment and granting divorce.
- The court held that Glenn’s intentional concealment of his felony conviction was fraud that went to the essence of the marriage under Utah’s common-law annulment standards.
- The court remanded with instructions to enter a decree of annulment.

## Legal Principles

- Under Utah common law, annulment for fraud is available only when the fraud goes to the essentials of the marriage relationship, not merely to matters showing poor character.
- The fraud must involve a present or existing material fact at the time of the marriage, must induce the marriage, and must be of a kind that the innocent spouse would not have accepted had the truth been known.
- When the trial court’s findings establish fraud that defeats an essential purpose of the marital relationship, denying annulment and granting only divorce is legal error.

## Conclusion

Haacke v. Glenn holds that a spouse’s deliberate concealment of a felony conviction may justify annulment when, in context, the concealment is not simply a character flaw but a misrepresentation of an existing fact that defeats an essential basis for the marriage—here, exposing the other spouse to a disqualifying conflict of interest that cost her employment and placed her at risk under governing rules—so the proper remedy is annulment rather than divorce.


Haacke v. Glenn, 814 P.2d 1157 (1991)