Haacke v. Glenn,
814 P.2d 1157 (Utah 1991).


Procedure: Appellant wife challenged an order from the Second District Court, Davis County (Utah), which denied her a decree of annulment and granted her a decree of divorce from appellee husband.


Facts: Because of LeslieAnn Haacke's (P's) employment as an attorney for the Utah Department of Corrections, a marriage to a convicted felon would create a severe conflict of interest and place her in violation of state policy, procedure, and law. P claims that when Mark Glenn (D) married her, he concealed that he was a convicted felon. It was her employer that informed her that she was married to a convicted felon and terminated her employment because of this conflict of interest. In response to this deception, P filed a complaint for di¬vorce, later amending the complaint to request an annulment. P and D entered into a stipulation in which they consented to the entry of an annulment decree. The court refused to grant an annulment and granted a divorce. The court based the ground for divorce on the finding that prior to marriage, D did make fraudu¬lent misrepresentations concerning his honesty and trustworthiness and lack of criminal involvement to P's detriment. P appeals.

Issue: Does a wife's complaint alleging her husband's fraudulent concealment of a felony conviction constitute a cause of action for annulment of marriage on the ground of common law fraud?

Rule: Fraud that goes to the essence of a marriage is a common law ground for annulment.

Holding:The Court of Appeals, Garff, J., held that husband's concealment of his criminal record and his false representation that joint funds were being used for child support when they were really being used to pay fines and restitution entitled wife to annulment.

Analysis: As part of her job, the wife had unlimited access to criminal records, which would have created a severe conflict of interest if the wife married a convicted felon. Prior to and during the marriage, the husband intentionally concealed from the wife the fact that he had been convicted of a felony in another state. The wife's employer informed her of this fact and terminated her based on the conflict of interest. The wife filed a complaint for divorce, which she amended to request an annulment. The trial court refused to grant the annulment and instead granted a divorce. On appeal, the wife argued that she was entitled to an annulment. The court reversed the judgment and held that: (1) Utah Code Ann. § 30-1-17.1(2) allowed for annulment upon grounds existing at common law; (2) under common law, a marriage could be annulled for fraud going to the essence of the marriage where the fraud was to such a degree that had the deceived party known of the fraud, he or she would not have consented to the marriage; and (3) the husband's false representations and concealments so violated the essential purpose of marriage that the wife was entitled to an annulment.