## Facts

- Antoinette Walters Janda petitioned to annul her marriage to Jiri Janda, alleging he fraudulently induced the marriage, lacked intent to honor marital obligations, and married her to obtain immigration status.
- The parties married on June 5, 2005, after a courtship of a few months.
- During their honeymoon, they had no sexual relations and slept in separate tents; after returning home, Jiri did not share a bedroom with Antoinette.
- Antoinette testified the marriage was never consummated and involved no sexual relationship of any kind; the parties otherwise lived more like roommates than spouses.
- Antoinette testified Jiri attributed the lack of intimacy to her weight; she lost 65 pounds, but he still showed no romantic interest.
- Jiri, a native of the Czech Republic, became a lawful permanent resident through the marriage and acknowledged annulment could lead to deportation.
- Jiri denied fraud and counterclaimed for divorce.
- After an ore tenus hearing, the trial court annulled the marriage, citing non-consummation and roommate-like conduct.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence supported a finding of fraud in the inducement justifying annulment rather than divorce.
2. Whether persistent non-consummation and roommate-like conduct could support an inference that a spouse entered the marriage without intent to perform essential marital obligations.

## Decision

- The Alabama Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the judgment annulling the marriage.
- The court held the trial court could reasonably infer fraudulent intent at the inception of the marriage from the complete lack of sexual relations, separate sleeping arrangements, and the parties’ conduct.
- The court concluded evidence of immigration-related motive, combined with non-consummation, supported the annulment.
- Applying ore tenus deference, the court declined to disturb the trial court’s credibility determinations and factual findings because they were supported by the record.

## Legal Principles

- A marriage may be annulled for fraud in the inducement when the fraud relates to essentials of the marital relationship.
- Evidence that a spouse entered the marriage with no intent to consummate or to perform basic marital obligations can constitute fraud warranting annulment.
- Persistent refusal to engage in sexual relations from the outset of the marriage may be circumstantial evidence of fraudulent intent at the time of marriage.
- Under the ore tenus rule, a trial court’s factual findings based on oral testimony are presumed correct and will not be reversed unless plainly and palpably wrong or unsupported by the evidence.

## Conclusion

The appellate court upheld annulment because the trial court could find, based on ore tenus testimony and credibility assessments, that the marriage was fraudulently induced by a spouse who never intended to consummate the marriage or undertake marital obligations, with immigration benefits providing supporting motive.


Janda v. Janda, 984 So. 2d 434 (Ala. Civ. App. 2007)