De-Grimaldi v. Eaton, 35,773

Petitioner (De‑Grimaldi) sought annulment of his marriage to Respondent (Eaton), alleging he never consented due to fear/mental state and thus no valid contract (no "meeting of the minds").
District court found Petitioner credible, concluded marriage was invalid (annulment) rather than a dissolution, and entered a permanent injunction restraining Respondent from using any part of Petitioner’s name, titles, or Monaco‑related references.
Respondent appealed, arguing: (1) the marriage should have been dissolved not annulled; (2) the court lacked personal jurisdiction; and (3) the injunction was improper.
The Court of Appeals issued a calendar notice proposing to affirm; Respondent filed a memorandum in opposition.
The appellate court deferred to the district court’s credibility findings (live witness demeanor) and affirmed the annulment and injunction, finding waiver of the personal‑jurisdiction defense.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (De‑Grimaldi)	Defendant's Argument (Eaton)	Held
Validity of marriage: annulment vs. dissolution	Marriage never formed because Petitioner lacked consent — no meeting of the minds	Marriage was valid; relief should be dissolution not annulment	Annulment affirmed; district court credited Petitioner’s testimony and found no contract formed
Need for amendment / expert evidence on mental state	Mental state at formation was integral to annulment claim; no amendment or experts required	Challenged reliance on mental‑state testimony and adequacy of pleadings	No amendment or expert evidence required; court could rely on Petitioner’s testimony
Personal jurisdiction	(No separate contention)	Court lacked personal jurisdiction over Respondent	Jurisdictional challenge waived by Respondent’s subsequent participation in the litigation
Permanent injunction restricting use of name/titles	Injunction necessary to prevent ongoing appropriation and harm	Injunction improper; Respondent did no harm and remedy too broad	Injunction within district court’s equitable discretion given findings of misconduct; not abused

Merrill v. Davis, 673 P.2d 1285 (N.M. 1983) (marriage validity requires contract and solemnization)
B & W Constr. Co. v. N.C. Ribble Co., 734 P.2d 226 (N.M. 1987) (meeting of the minds determines contract formation)
Tallman v. ABF (Arkansas Best Freight), 767 P.2d 363 (N.M. Ct. App. 1988) (appellate courts defer to trial court on witness credibility)
Guthrie v. Threlkeld Co., 192 P.2d 307 (N.M. 1948) (general appearance waives personal‑jurisdiction objection)
Barreras v. N.M. Motor Vehicle Div., 112 P.3d 296 (N.M. Ct. App. 2005) (same — waiver by general appearance)
Cafeteria Operators, L.P. v. Coronado‑Santa Fe Assocs., L.P., 952 P.2d 435 (N.M. Ct. App. 1998) (injunctions are equitable and reviewed for abuse of discretion)
In re Mokiligon, 106 P.3d 584 (N.M. Ct. App. 2005) (name changes may be denied to prevent fraud on the public)
Wilcox v. Timberon Protective Ass'n, 806 P.2d 1068 (N.M. Ct. App. 1990) (harm is one factor among many in injunction analysis)