“A claim of nullity is based on an allegation that an impediment existed at the time of the solemnization of the marriage that prevented a valid marriage from ever existing. A marriage that is the subject of a nullity proceeding is either void, or it is voidable at the option of one of the parties.”
“Marriages that are void include those that are incestuous or bigamous. Marriages between parents and children, ancestors and descendants of every degree, and between brothers and sisters of the half as well as the whole blood, and between uncles and nieces or aunts and nephews, are incestuous, and void from the beginning, whether the relationship is legitimate or illegitimate. [Fam. Code, § 2200] Subject to certain specific exceptions, a subsequent marriage contracted by a person during the life of a former husband or wife of the person, with a person other than the former husband or wife, is illegal and void from the beginning. [Fam. Code, § 2201, subd. (a)] Bigamy renders the later marriage either void or voidable, depending on the circumstances. [In re Marriage of Tejeda, 179 Cal. App. 4th 973, 102 Cal. Rptr. 3d 361 (6th Dist. 2009)]”
“Certain marriages that are voidable at the option of one of the parties. These marriages do not, in themselves, violate public policy, but generally relate to factors that affect the consent of one of the spouses to enter into the marriage, such as age, force, or fraud. The grounds in California are statutory and are set forth in Fam. Code, § 2210. These marriages are not invalid ab initio, and if the impediment is removed, or a party becomes aware of the impediment and chooses to continue with the marriage, the grounds for nullity may be lost. A proceeding to obtain a judgment of nullity of a voidable marriage must be commenced within the periods and by the parties according to statute. [Fam. Code, § 2211]”
“A petition for nullity based on a marriage that is voidable alleging consent obtained by fraud as provided in Fam. Code, § 2210, subd. (d) (formerly Civ. Code, § 4425) means fraud that goes to the “very essence” of the marital relationship. [In re Marriage of Johnston, 18 Cal. App. 4th 499, 22 Cal. Rptr. 2d 253 (4th Dist. 1993); see also In re Marriage of Ramirez, 165 Cal. App. 4th 751, 81 Cal. Rptr. 3d 180 (4th Dist. 2008) (holding that fraud relied upon to support the annulment of a marriage must be such as directly defeats the marriage relationship and not merely such fraud as would be sufficient to rescind an ordinary civil contract)] The concealment of “incontinence, temper, idleness, extravagance, coldness or fortune inadequate to representations” cannot be the basis for an annulment. [In re Marriage of Johnston, 18 Cal. App. 4th 499, 22 Cal. Rptr. 2d 253 (4th Dist. 1993) (holding that the wife’s testimony that after marriage she determined that her husband had a drinking problem, that he refused to seek employment, that their sex life was unsatisfactory, and that husband was often unshaven did not constitute fraud within meaning of Fam. Code, § 2210, subd. (d))]”
“An annulment of marriage may be granted on the basis of fraud only in an extreme case where the particular fraud goes to the very essence of the marriage relation. [In re Marriage of Turfe, 23 Cal. App. 5th 1118, 233 Cal. Rptr. 3d 315 (2d Dist. 2018), as modified on denial of reh’g, (June 8, 2018)] A secret intention of a woman concealed from her husband at the time of marriage never to live with him in any home provided by him would be a fraud going to the very essence of the marriage relation and of such a vital character as to constitute a ground for annulment. [In re Marriage of Turfe, 23 Cal. App. 5th 1118, 233 Cal. Rptr. 3d 315 (2d Dist. 2018), as modified on denial of reh’g, (June 8, 2018)]”
[California Civil Practice Family Law Litigation [certain citations omitted]]
