Nwankwo v. Uzodinma
2022 Ohio 565
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2022Background
- Nwankwo (Wife) and Uzodinma (Husband), both from Nigeria, reconnected as adults; they had a traditional ceremony in Nigeria (2014) and a legal U.S. marriage (May 2015) after Husband entered on a fiancé visa.
- Parties commingled finances and pursued IVF; Husband obtained a green card (2019) and then naturalized in December 2019 without Wife's knowledge of his application.
- After naturalization Husband’s behavior changed: he grew distant, stopped participating in IVF, opened a secret Chase account, redirected paychecks, and shortly thereafter disappeared from the marital home (June 2020).
- Wife discovered internet searches of escort and dating sites, communications about alternate phone apps and a Canadian visa, and messages indicating Husband wanted to "find a way out." Husband never returned.
- Wife sued to annul the marriage under R.C. 3105.31(D), alleging Husband induced the marriage by fraud to obtain U.S. citizenship; the trial court found Wife’s testimony more credible and granted annulment.
- Husband’s post-judgment motion for a new trial was denied; he appealed, raising (1) error in granting annulment for fraud and (2) error denying a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Wife/Nwankwo) | Defendant's Argument (Husband/Uzodinma) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether consent to marriage was obtained by fraud under R.C. 3105.31(D) and what burden applies | Wife argued Husband married with undisclosed intent to obtain U.S. citizenship; circumstantial evidence (timing of green card/citizenship, behavioral change, secret accounts, online activity, failure to consummate/complete IVF) proves fraud | Husband argued no clear-and-convincing proof of fraudulent intent: long romantic history, five-year marriage, shared home/finances, IVF efforts, explanations for conduct, and other legitimate reasons for leaving | Court held fraud must be proved by clear and convincing evidence and that Wife met that standard; annulment affirmed (trial court credited Wife’s testimony and reasonable inferences from circumstantial evidence) |
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying Husband’s Civ.R. 59 motion for a new trial (irregularity, misconduct, surprise, weight of evidence, contrary to law) | Wife maintained evidence produced/disclosed properly and trial court had observed witness credibility; no basis for new trial | Husband claimed surprise/misconduct (Wife’s testimony about paycheck deposits was false), counsel’s failure to introduce an audio recording, and that judgment was not sustained by clear and convincing evidence | Court affirmed denial of new trial: Husband failed to show diligence or surprise (records were available via discovery), trial court properly weighed credibility and evidence, and no abuse of discretion or legal error occurred |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Doner v. Zody, 130 Ohio St.3d 446 (Ohio 2011) (defines clear-and-convincing standard vs. preponderance)
- Weiss v. Kearns, 11 Ohio St.2d 73 (Ohio 1967) (equitable remedies for fraud require clear-and-convincing proof)
- Myers v. Garson, 66 Ohio St.3d 610 (Ohio 1993) (appellate deference to trial-court credibility findings)
- Kroger v. Ryan, 83 Ohio St. 299 (Ohio 1911) (party claiming surprise must show prompt action and due diligence)
- In re Marriage of Liu, 197 Cal.App.3d 143 (Cal. Ct. App. 1987) (annulment available when marriage induced solely for immigration benefit)
- Miller v. Miller, 956 P.2d 887 (Okla. 1998) (concealment of marriage-for-immigration motive can affect essence of marital relation)
- In re Marriage of Rabie, 40 Cal.App.3d 917 (Cal. Ct. App. 1974) (equity will annul where deceit defeats essential purposes of marriage)