Other articles by Howard Fischer:

Failed legislative bill leaves public-financed campaigns in doubtBurns: Brewer bungling her job House approves boost in funding for those seeking office next year 3 recommended to Brewer to fill seat on high court AZ can enact own greenhouse gas regsRecession reins in sprawl Pet bills aplenty pouring forth from Legislature Brewer wants budget right away, but not those other, lesser bills Flat-tax plan could hit walletsRepeal of ban on sparklers nears final OK

Administrative & Professional
Tucson Urban League
CEO/President Finance and Accounting
Charles E. Gillman Company
Accounting Specialist Administrative & Professional
Jorgensen Brooks Group
Counselor Sales and Marketing
Everready Glass
Sales Reps Trades/Construction
RANCHO RESORT
MAINTANANCE POSITION Mechanical
Komatsu Equipment Co
Resident Field Mechanic

A woman whose future husband lied about his financial condition and his previous marriages, then didn't keep his promise to stop dressing in women's clothes is entitled to have the marriage annulled, the Arizona Court of Appeals ruled.

In a unanimous decision, the three-judge panel rejected arguments by Ronald Cuthbertson that Karen Adam, a judge pro tem from Pima County, should not have granted his now-ex-wife's petition to annul the six-year marriage. Cuthbertson represented himself.

Annulments are a seldom-used method of undoing marriage in Arizona.

In general, they are used when one party wants a court to rule that, for legal purposes, the marriage did not exist. If nothing else, that eliminates any need to divide up community property accumulated during the marriage.

According to the ruling, Ronald and Kumiko Cuthbertson met on the Internet in 1996 and corresponded extensively before meeting in person the following year.

Kumiko Cuthbertson said she did not speak English and used a dictionary to understand what Ronald was writing. Ronald subsequently moved to Japan, where they lived together for 17 months before marrying there in 1999.

She testified that before they married, Ronald told her "he was about to publish a book or open . . . a business" and would earn more than $1 million.

The couple subsequently moved to Tucson, where they married again about 18 months after the Japanese wedding.

But in June 2005 Kumiko filed a petition to annul the marriage, claiming he had "defrauded her and induced her into marrying him under false pretenses" so she would "fully financially support him."

The trial judge agreed, ruling the marriage was "void at its inception" because Ronald clearly intended to marry Kumiko solely to get access to her "considerable assets."

Ronald appealed, charging that the trial judge acted illegally in "a blatant attempt . . . to deprive (him) of his statutory rights to community property."

And he said Adam did not state a valid reason for declaring the marriage void.

State law spells out that trial courts can annul a marriage "when the cause alleged constitutes an impediment rendering the marriage void."

Appellate Judge John Pelander, writing for the court, said Arizona case law has defined that as "false representations of love and affection . . . coupled with a fraudulent intent to deprive (the other party) of her property."

Here, Pelander said, the record supports the trial court's conclusion that Ronald married Kumiko for her money.

Pelander said that point also is backed by what the trial court found to be Ronald's "pattern of deception," including lying to Kumiko about his business prospects.

He also told Kumiko he had been married just twice before; the actual number was three to four different women, including once to a prostitute.

And Pelander cited Ronald's "continued cross-dressing despite his promise to Kumiko before the marriage to desist."

The appellate court also upheld the trial judge's conclusion that Ronald had used $173,000 of Kumiko's money without her permission.

And it rejected Ronald's contention that he "had the right to use community funds," because no community in fact ever existed because the marriage was void.