In the Matter of Paula Geraghty and Kenneth Geraghty
150 A.3d 386
N.H.2016Background
- Paula and Kenneth Geraghty married in New York in 1986, lived in several states, and had been New Hampshire residents for ~8 years when Kenneth filed for annulment in 2015 and Paula had filed for divorce in 2013.
- Kenneth alleged fraud in the inducement (non-disclosure of Paula’s prior prostitution, illegal drug use, and medical procedures) and argued New York law should govern annulment because the marriage was contracted in New York and the alleged fraud occurred there.
- The trial court denied annulment, applied New Hampshire law, found Paula’s testimony (that she disclosed medical procedures pre-marriage) credible, and found Kenneth committed adultery but that adultery did not cause the marriage breakdown.
- The court concluded the marriage broke down in early 2013 and ordered an equal division of the marital estate, including transferring one-half of one of Kenneth’s retirement accounts to Paula (to be effectuated via QDRO if needed).
- Kenneth moved for reconsideration arguing choice of law, annulment, credibility, inequitable equal division, and adverse tax consequences from the retirement-account transfer; the trial court denied reconsideration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Paula) | Defendant's Argument (Kenneth) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Choice of law for annulment | New Hampshire law applies; forum has interest and parties long-resident here | New York law should apply because marriage and alleged fraud occurred in NY and predictability favors NY law | Court correctly applied New Hampshire law after weighing five Clark factors; affirmed on appeal |
| Annulment for fraud | Fraud alleged (prior prostitution/drug use) insufficient under NH law | Alleged nondisclosures were material under NY law and would have vitiated consent | Under NH law fraud must go to essence of marriage; trial court did not err denying annulment |
| Credibility of testimony | Court credited Paula’s testimony that she disclosed medical procedures | Kenneth maintained Paula did not disclose; court failed to explain credibility finding | Appellate court defers to trial court credibility determinations; no reversible error and argument not preserved to require explanation |
| Property division & retirement account transfer | Equal division equitable; transfer via QDRO ordered; Paula to bear expense of QDRO | Unequal contribution/ separate property arguments; claimed adverse tax/security consequences from forced retirement transfer and requested alternative asset transfer | Trial court sustainably exercised discretion in equal division and in awarding 1/2 of retirement account; Kenneth failed to demonstrate tax detriment or preserve request for evidentiary reopening |
Key Cases Cited
- Clark v. Clark, 107 N.H. 351 (1966) (sets out five choice-influencing considerations for conflicts analysis)
- Ferren v. General Motors Corp., 137 N.H. 423 (1993) (applies choice-influencing considerations in conflicts of law)
- Fortin v. Fortin, 106 N.H. 208 (1965) (annulment for fraud granted only with extreme caution; fraud must go to essence of marriage)
- Heath v. Heath, 85 N.H. 419 (1932) (rejects broad material-fraud standard for annulment; marriage status distinct from ordinary contracts)
- Patey v. Peaslee, 99 N.H. 335 (1955) (fraud as to character/morality/habits generally insufficient for annulment)