## Facts

- Yamel Avila and Miguel A. Montenegro met online in 2003 and communicated regularly, discussing marriage, family, and home.
- Avila learned Montenegro was from Bogotá, Colombia and could not enter the United States on a tourist visa; they first met in Mexico in 2004.
- After Avila visited Montenegro in Colombia, she accepted his proposal; she applied for a fiancé visa for him and paid related legal fees.
- The parties married in Texas on September 3, 2005, and Montenegro promptly sought immigration benefits, including a two-year conditional residency card.
- Avila worked and added Montenegro to joint bank accounts; she later discovered he made withdrawals or transfers without her initial knowledge, draining funds.
- Avila testified Montenegro often rejected sexual relations and insisted on birth control despite her desire to have children.
- In December 2007, Montenegro received a permanent green card; Avila testified his commitment to the relationship decreased afterward.
- In February 2008, Montenegro removed his belongings and left; Avila filed for annulment alleging he never intended a genuine marital relationship and married to obtain immigration status and financial support.

## Issues

1. Whether legally sufficient evidence supported the trial court’s finding that Montenegro fraudulently induced Avila to marry.
2. Whether factually sufficient evidence supported the finding that the fraud was material and went to the essentials of the marital relationship, justifying annulment rather than divorce.

## Decision

- The court of appeals affirmed the judgment annulling the marriage based on fraud.
- The evidence was legally sufficient to support that Montenegro procured the marriage by fraud.
- The evidence was factually sufficient to support that the fraud went to the essentials of the marriage.
- The appellate court deferred to the trial court’s credibility determinations made after a bench trial.

## Legal Principles

- A marriage may be annulled for fraud when one spouse is induced to marry by a material misrepresentation or deception that goes to the essentials of the marital relationship.
- Fraud may be shown through circumstantial evidence of intent at the time of marriage, including post-marriage conduct closely connected to the alleged purpose of the deception.
- In legal sufficiency review, an appellate court views evidence in the light most favorable to the finding and disregards contrary evidence unless a fact-finder could not.
- In factual sufficiency review, an appellate court considers all evidence and reverses only if the finding is against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence.
- In a bench trial, the trial court is the sole judge of witness credibility and the weight to assign testimony.

## Conclusion

The court upheld an annulment where circumstantial evidence—especially the spouse’s immigration-driven conduct, secret depletion of joint funds, limited commitment to a conjugal family relationship, and departure shortly after receiving permanent residency—supported the finding that he never intended a bona fide marriage and that the deception went to the essentials of the marital relationship.


Montenegro v. Avila, 365 S.W.3d 822 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2012)