DOS SANTOS VS. DREIBELBIS (FAMILY)

Statutes cited

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

The Court of Appeals reviews annulment proceedings for an abuse of discretion. Williams v. Williams, 120 Nev. 559, 566-67, 97 P.3d 1124, 1129 (2004). NRS 125.340(1) provides that "[i]f the consent of either party was obtained by fraud and fraud has been proved, the marriage shall be void from the time its nullity shall be declared by a court of competent authority." A party seeking an annulment for fraud under NRS 125.340(1) must prove fraud by clear and convincing evidence. Irving v. Irving, 122 Nev. 494, 497, 134 P.3d 718, 721 (2006). Maria argued the district court applied the wrong evidentiary standard by accepting "sufficient" proof rather than clear and convincing evidence. Mark argued the court correctly granted the annulment by finding fraud proven through clear and convincing evidence even though it did not use those exact words. The court agreed with Maria. The decree stated that Mark had "sufficiently proven" the allegations in his counterclaim, but the district court did not identify or apply the correct legal standard of clear and convincing evidence. The court further explained that, under Nevada law, a finding of fraud requires establishing certain elements. For fraudulent inducement, the court must find that (1) a false representation was made, (2) the defendant had knowledge or belief that the representation was false, (3) the defendant intended to induce the plaintiff to rely on the statement, (4) the plaintiff justifiably relied on the statement, and (5) damages were incurred based on that reliance. Bulbman, Inc. v. Nev. Bell, 108 Nev. 105, 110-11, 825 P.2d 588, 592 (1992) (setting forth the elements of fraud in the context of a contract and tort dispute); see also Leax v. Leax, 305 S.W.3d 22, 29 (Tex. App. 2009) (identifying the foregoing elements as the elements of fraudulent inducement in the annulment context). The court observed that the damages element, "an amorphous concept in the annulment context," concerns whether a marriage occurred under fraudulent circumstances, rather than whether monetary damages were incurred by a party. The district court did not address any of the elements of fraud in its order, making it unclear whether it performed the proper analysis in determining that Mark had "sufficiently proven" his allegations. The court cited Davis v. Ewalefo, 131 Nev. 445, 450, 352 P.3d 1139, 1142 (2015), for the proposition that "deference is not owed to legal error, or to findings so conclusory they may mask legal error." The court held that, although the district court found Maria lacked credibility on certain issues, intended to fabricate a domestic violence claim, and married Mark for personal gain, those findings do not, without more, establish fraudulent inducement under the clear-and-convincing standard. It was also unclear whether the court would have reached the same result had it performed the proper analysis. See In re Guardianship of B.A.A.R., 136 Nev. 494, 500, 474 P.3d 838, 844 (Ct. App. 2020) (reversing and remanding where the district court did not apply the correct legal standard and where it was unclear whether the court would have reached the same conclusion had it applied the correct standard); see also LVMPD v. Blackjack Bonding, Inc., 131 Nev. 80, 89, 343 P.3d 608, 614 (2015) (holding that an abuse of discretion can occur when a district court "disregards controlling law"). The court reversed the decree of annulment and remanded for further proceedings to apply the correct evidentiary standard of clear and convincing evidence and properly analyze the elements of fraud. It instructed that if the district court concludes on remand that Mark did not prove fraud by clear and convincing evidence as necessary to set aside the marriage, the district court should enter a decree of divorce.

In plain language

This case concerns the difference between a divorce and an annulment, and what a court must prove before it can declare that a marriage never legally existed. Maria Rosa Dos Santos, who is originally from Argentina and was living in the United States on an expired visa, met Mark Vincent Dreibelbis, a U.S. citizen and Nevada real estate agent, through a dating app in late 2021. They married in Las Vegas in February 2022, despite a language barrier (Mark spoke English, Maria spoke only Spanish), and Maria moved in with Mark in Henderson. Mark supported Maria financially and began helping her apply for permanent residency, but the application was never filed because his real estate business struggled as mortgage interest rates rose. As their finances worsened, the relationship broke down. By October 2022, Maria had moved into a friend's home and told police that Mark had strangled her during a domestic violence incident. Police observed visible injuries, went to Mark's home, and arrested him; he denied the allegations. Mark was charged with domestic battery by strangulation, but the charge was later dismissed after Maria did not appear to testify. In May 2023, Maria filed for divorce. Mark responded by asking the court to annul the marriage - an annulment treats the marriage as if it was never valid, rather than ending a valid marriage as a divorce does. Mark claimed Maria married him only to get immigration benefits and that she had made up the domestic violence accusations to support an immigration petition. He submitted translated WhatsApp messages that he said showed Maria admitting she fabricated the abuse claims and used the marriage to get legal status. Maria denied writing the messages and said Mark - who had created her WhatsApp account and had access to her devices - fabricated them. Mark acknowledged he knew about her immigration status before the marriage and had agreed to support her and help her get documentation for legal residency. After a trial, the district court granted the annulment. It found that Maria had fraudulently induced the marriage solely for immigration purposes and that her domestic violence allegations were not credible, concluding that Mark had "sufficiently proven" his allegations. On appeal, the Court of Appeals agreed with Maria that the district court used the wrong standard of proof. Under Nevada law, a person seeking an annulment based on fraud must prove that fraud by "clear and convincing evidence" - a demanding standard. The trial court instead said only that Mark had "sufficiently proven" his claims, and it never identified or applied the clear-and-convincing standard. The appellate court also noted that the trial court never worked through the specific elements that make up fraud. Because of this, the Court of Appeals reversed the annulment and sent the case back so the district court can apply the correct standard and analyze the elements of fraud properly. The court added that if, on remand, the district court concludes Mark did not prove fraud by clear and convincing evidence, it should instead enter a decree of divorce.