Marriage of Snowden and Campeanu

















Filed 2/4/13 Marriage of Snowden and Campeanu CA6

>

>

>

>

>NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

>









California
Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or
relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except
as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This
opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for
purposes of rule 8.1115.





IN
THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA



SIXTH
APPELLATE DISTRICT




>

In re Marriage of NORRIS SNOWDEN and SIMONA N. CAMPEANU.	H038010 (Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. 1-11-FL157518)
NORRIS SNOWDEN, Appellant, v. SIMONA N. CAMPEANU, Respondent.

Petitioner Norris Snowden is a
55-year-old American. Respondent Simona
N. Campeanu is a Romanian citizen in her early forties. She first met Snowden via the Internet in
2006. Snowden and Campeanu got married
in 2009. They did not begin living
together until December 2010, after Campeanu obtained the necessary visa and
left Romania
with her two daughters, moving into Snowden’s home in San
Jose. The
couple lived together for less than two months before they separated
permanently in January 2011.

On March 3, 2011, Snowden filed a petition to annul the
marriage, citing Family Code section 2210, subdivision (d), which provides for
annulment in the case of fraud. Snowden claimed that Campeanu refused to have
sex with him after they married and had concealed from him the fact that she is
unfertile. Snowden maintained that
Campeanu’s true motive for marrying him was to obtain a green card, allowing
her to reside in the United States.

Campeanu denied the fraud
allegation and petitioned for dissolution of the marriage. The trial court bifurcated the annulment
issue from the dissolution issue and the annulment matter was tried first. The evidence consisted primarily of the
testimony of the two parties. The trial
court, as the finder of fact, concluded that Snowden had failed to carry his
burden of proof and denied the petition.
Snowden appeals. He argues that
the evidence supports his claim of fraud but he disregards substantial
conflicting evidence upon which the trial court relied. Accordingly, we shall affirm.href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" title="">[1]

A.
Legal Framework

Family Code section 2210, subdivision (d) provides that a marriage is
voidable and may be adjudged a nullity if, “The consent of either party was
obtained by fraud . . . .” In the
civil context, proof of fraud requires, among other things, proof of the
defendant’s misrepresentation or concealment, the defendant’s intent to induce
reliance, and the plaintiff’s justifiable reliance upon the deceit. (Lazar v. Superior Court (1996) 12
Cal.4th 631, 638.) In the context of a
petition to annul a marriage, the fraud “must be such as directly defeats the
marriage relationship and not merely such fraud as would be sufficient to
rescind an ordinary civil contract. [Citations.] Fraudulent intent not to perform a duty vital
to the marriage state must exist in the offending spouse’s mind at the moment
the marriage contract is made.” (>In re Marriage of Ramirez (2008) 165
Cal.App.4th 751, 757 (Ramirez).) The fact represented or concealed by the offending
spouse must be one that “relates to a matter of substance and directly affects
the purpose of” the spouse who claims to have been deceived into entering into
the marriage. (Ibid.)

“[H]istorically,name="sp_7047_185"> name="citeas((Cite_as:_165_Cal.App.4th_751,_*7">annulments based on fraud
have only been granted in cases where the fraud relates in some way to the
sexual, procreative or child-rearing aspects of marriage.” (Ramirez, supra,> 165 Cal.App.4th at p. 758.) For example, an
annulment may be had for fraud where one spouse secretly intends at the time of
the marriage not to engage in sexual relations with the other spouse (>In re Marriage of Liu (1987) 197
Cal.App.3d 143, 156), where a wife concealed from her husband that she was
pregnant by another man (Hardesty v. Hardesty (1924) 193 Cal. 330), or
where a wife concealed the fact that she was sterile (Vileta v. Vileta
(1942) 53 Cal.App.2d 794). Even in cases
of alleged immigration fraud, a judgment of nullity is generally granted only
where substantial evidence demonstrates that the immigrant spouse never intended
to carry out the essential duties of a spouse.
(See, e.g., In re Marriage of Rabie (1974) 40 Cal.App.3d 917,
922-923 [husband married to obtain green card and did not
intend to remain faithful to wife
or remain married
to her]; In re Marriage of Liu, supra, at p. 156
[wife married to obtain green card and concealed intent not to engage in sexual
relations].)

B.
The Evidence

1. Snowden’s Testimony

Snowden and Campeanu met over the
Internet in 2006. They met in person in Romania
in 2007 and again in 2008. Snowden liked
being with Campeanu and wanted her to come to the United States so he employed
immigration consultant Jim Phair to arrange for a fiancée visa for her. Phair made the arrangements and Campeanu
arrived in San Jose in February
2009. Snowden and Campeanu soon decided
to get married.

Notwithstanding the developing
relationship with Campeanu, Snowden had continued exchanging flirtatious
e-mails with other women online.
Campeanu discovered one such e-mail on his computer shortly before their
wedding day and it upset her. Snowden
was upset with Campeanu for looking into his personal e-mail. They decided to go ahead with the wedding
anyway and got married March 5, 2009. Campeanu returned to Romania
five days later because the fiancée visa had expired.

Snowden did not communicate with
Campeanu for several weeks after Campeanu returned to Romania. Campeanu e-mailed Snowden persistently but he
did not respond. He wanted to separate
from her because she had “violated [the] safety” of his home by snooping on his
computer. Eventually, however, he
accepted her apology and they reconciled.
Snowden asked Phair to apply for a spousal visa for Campeanu. Phair told him it would take nine to 10
months.

The visa was eventually approved
and Campeanu arrived with her children in December 2010, one year and nine
months after the marriage in California. Snowden, who is an emergency response social
worker employed by the County of Santa Clara, immediately asserted his child
welfare expertise, coaching Campeanu on how to deal with her youngest daughter,
who, he said, suffered from obsessive compulsive disorder and other mental
health problems. He faulted Campeanu for
her parenting skills and claimed that the daughter’s behavioral difficulties
improved significantly in just a few weeks under his care.

On January 6, 2011, Campeanu received her green card and
immediately her behavior changed.
Snowden claimed that she no longer showed him any affection unless they
were in public. Very suddenly, “[a]s soon
as she got the green card,” she began “screaming and yelling” at him. She accused Snowden of having a girlfriend
and demanded to go to North Carolina where her best friend was then living. On January 22, 2011, they had a big
fight. Snowden bought airline tickets to
North Carolina for Campeanu and her daughters and arranged transportation to
the airport the next day. That same day
Snowden contacted Phair and online legal sites to see what his rights were. He made an appointment with an immigration
official a couple of weeks later and turned in a report to the immigration
office on February 2, 2011.

Snowden testified that “two days
prior to marriage, sexual relationships stopped” so that he and Campeanu never
had sexual relations with each other during their marriage. He maintained that she had slept with her
back to him and dressed unattractively on purpose to keep him from feeling
attracted to her. Sometimes they would
have romantic evenings but they would never “pan out.”

On cross examination Snowden
admitted that he did not mention the lack of sexual relations in any of his
correspondence or reports about problems with his marriage. In a declaration he had previously executed
under penalty of perjury he stated that it was his decision to end sexual
intimacies so that the two could “talk, discuss, and relate our ideals about
life to one another in hopes that our relationship would grow stronger.” He talked with Campeanu about terminating
their sexual relations before they got married.
Even though he and Campeanu had been married since March 2009, Snowden
had not added her to his health insurance because, he said, “I had a lot of
things to do. [It] just never came
around.”

Snowden also admitted that in April
2009, a month after his marriage to Campeanu, he went to Manila and met several
women there. He denied having sex with
them. He traveled to Romania in December
2009 and stayed with Campeanu. He denied
having sex with her during that visit.
In April 2010, Snowden returned to the Philippines and lied to Campeanu
about that trip, telling her he was going to Sacramento. In July 2010, he went back to Romania but
denied having sexual relations with Campeanu on that trip. In November 2010, he went to Thailand where
he met two or three women. He went to
Costa Rica in April 2011. He denied
having sexual relations with any women he met on these trips.

2.
Campeanu’s
Testimony

When Snowden first went to Romania
in June 2007, Snowden and Campeanu saw each other almost every day for the two
weeks he was there and regularly engaged in sexual relations. Snowden asked Campeanu to come to the United
States and live with him for a while to “see if we match.” After he left they talked via the Internet
“almost every day” and the relationship continued to develop. Campeanu’s family did not approve of the
relationship. Campeanu is White and
Snowden is Black and interracial couples are not accepted in Romania.

Campeanu received the first visa in
January 2009. Three days after receiving
it she had a fertility test that showed it unlikely she could conceive. Campeanu knew Snowden wanted to have
children. She planned to try fertility
treatments. She told Snowden “there were
very few chances to have a baby at my age due to my hormonal issues.” “I told him I cannot get pregnant or there
were very few chances.” This was prior
to their marriage but after she had traveled to San Jose. Campeanu had intended to tell him before
leaving Romania but when he told her he had made room for her in his home she
could not bring herself to say anything.
She did not tell him about the fertility test itself.

Late in February or early March
2009, Campeanu was on Snowden’s computer looking for flowers for the wedding
and found “some bad words in his recent search.” The words referred to Bangkok and, knowing
that Snowden had been to Bangkok the previous September, she looked into his
e-mail account. There she found an
e-mail from a woman in Bangkok with an attachment showing Snowden and the woman
in a restaurant. The woman stated, “I
love you. I miss you,” to which Snowden
replied that he was “trying to get [rest] and save my energy for another trip
[to] Thailand in April.” When
confronted, Snowden promised he loved Campeanu and would not go anywhere, but
he was upset that she had looked into his e-mails. Nevertheless, they went ahead with the
wedding. They had sex on the night
before she returned to Romania on March 10, 2009.

After returning to Romania,
Campeanu continued to communicate with Snowden via the Internet for a few weeks
until Campeanu discovered that Snowden was still on dating and travel sites and
had traveled to the Philippines just three weeks after the wedding. In an e-mail dated April 10, 2009, she asked
for a divorce, noting, “You have never used the same rules for both of us. You did not trust in me when you said it was
not the moment to get pregnant, remember?
Even without real reasons, only making suppositions. Not all the people are like you, Norris. Everything I did lately was thinking of us
instead of me. I was even about to start
a fertility treatment, to turn back my biological clock. See how naïve I was?” Snowden did not reply.

On April 22, 2009, Campeanu wrote
to “web site lawyers” via e-mail asking:
“I got married with an American citizen in March 2009 in San Jose,
California. He did not contact me in the
last month, and he refuses to answer my messages. What are my rights as a wife? How do I get divorced, as long as I got to
the United States with a fiancé[e] visa, with only one entry, and I did not
start yet the process for a spouse visa?”
She telephoned Phair on May 21, asking him “How can I get
divorced.” She called another
immigration specialist on May 29 with the same inquiry. By then she had contacted a lawyer in Romania
and had learned that she could not apply for divorce in Romania nor could she
do so in California without residing there for six months. She did not want to continue with the visa
process. In an e-mail reply to the
second immigration specialist Campeanu stated, “I don’t want to continue the
proceedings for obtaining the green card.
My wish is to only obtain dissolution of marriage. Could you help me by recommending a lawyer specialized
in divorce? I’m sorry for insisting, but
I really don’t know how to initiate this procedure, as long as my husband
refuses to cooperate. Once again, thank
you for your time.”

Campeanu continued sending e-mails
to Snowden expressing her feelings for him and her frustration with the whole
situation. She finally heard from
Snowden again on May 3, 2009. He was
still very put off by her having looked at his e-mail. Campeanu decided that she wanted to try to
solve their problems and give him a chance to explain but she told him that if
he wanted to dissolve the marriage she would not fight him. They eventually reconciled in June 2009. Snowden contacted Phair again and the process
for a spousal visa was restarted.

Snowden went to Romania in December
2009 and stayed for four days. Snowden
and Campeanu had sexual relations once during that time. He returned in July 2010 for two weeks. Again they had sexual relations only
once. Campeanu wondered why he had slowed
down their sexual relations. She was the
one who usually initiated sex but Snowden usually refused. Campeanu asked Snowden why they could not
have a “normal” life. Snowden said he
was getting old and did not feel like having sex.

The spousal visa was finally issued
and Campeanu arrived in California on December 8, 2010, bringing her two
daughters with her. Campeanu, who has a
bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering and a masters in financial
management, quit a good paying job and signed a long-term lease on the
apartment she owned before packing up and moving to San Jose. Things were fine for about two weeks but then
something changed and Snowden became very demanding and insisted that she
should always follow his instructions to the letter. He told her she was an incompetent mother,
did not know how to cook, and repeatedly threatened to send her back to
Romania. This was a great concern to
Campeanu in light of what she had given up in Romania. Snowden refused to have sex with her and, at
the same time, his computer history showed he was active on dating Web sites
and viewing pornography. By January 4,
2011, Snowden decided they had to separate.
Finally, after a big fight with Snowden on January 22, 2011, Campeanu
and her daughters left for North Carolina where Campeanu’s friend lived.

C.
Snowden’s
Rebuttal

Snowden claimed that
he did not learn about the 2009 fertility test and did not know Campeanu had
any fertility problems until the day of trial when he saw her trial brief. He denied Campeanu’s claim that they had had
sexual relations three times since the wedding.


On cross examination
Snowden explained that he knew fertility could be an issue because of both
their ages, “So we thought that there may be a possibility, because we’ve been
having plenty of sex, and what I wanted to do is when she got here we could do
whatever is best to be sure that she could get pregnant and we could have a
baby.” He again admitted that he never
added her to his health insurance, denied having any sex with her since prior
to March 2009, and denied having had any sex with anybody else since then. At the same time, he agreed that he believed
he is a “typical male” without “any problems with sex” and that he was
“sexually active.”

D.
The Trial Court’s
Decision

The trial court concluded that Snowden had not proved his
marital fraud claim, resolving the conflicting evidence in Campeanu’s
favor. The court found that Campeanu
“loved Snowden and intended to engage in sexual relations with him after they
married.” They engaged in sexual
relations on Snowden’s two postmarriage trips to Romania and Campeanu had
intended to continue the sexual relations but it was Snowden who “did not want
to engage in sexual relations at that time because he wanted to focus on
deepening their relationship by discussing each other’s ideals and
beliefs. He admits as much in his
declaration filed on May 10, 2011.”

As to the fertility issue, the court observed that Snowden
had not alleged infertility as a basis for annulment nor had he raised the
issue of Campeanu’s failure to show him the 2009 fertility report until he
filed an objection to the trial court’s proposed statement of decision. But even if these procedural issues were
excused, Snowden had not proved that he was unaware of Campeanu’s fertility
problem or that he would not have entered into the marriage had she shown him
the report. The court accepted
Campeanu’s testimony describing her premarital discussion with Snowden about
“the fact she probably could not become pregnant . . . .” “At the time of the marriage, Snowden was
already aware that it would be difficult for Campeanu to become pregnant at her
age and it would become even more difficult as time passed. Snowden and Campeanu had discussed adoption
as an alternative if Campeanu could not become pregnant. Nevertheless, Snowden was not in any hurry to
have a child with Campeanu, as evidenced by his decision not to put her on his
medical coverage (so that she could undergo fertility testing in the United
States) and not to engage in sexual relations so that they could focus on
deepening their relationship. Snowden
had planned for Campeanu to undergo fertility treatment in the United
States. There is no evidence that
Snowden would have accepted the Romanian medical report as valid proof that
Campeanu could not become pregnant.”
Thus, the trial court concluded, Campeanu did not conceal her fertility
problem at the time of the marriage, Snowden would have married her even if he
had seen the Romanian fertility report, and Campeanu’s fertility was not
material to Snowden’s decision to marry her.

Finally, the trial court found that Campeanu did not marry
Snowden just to obtain a green card.
Rather, she loved him and had intended to fulfill her marital
duties. The marriage failed for other
reasons, including “trust issues,” Snowden’s “ambivalence about being married
and his seeming desire to continue living the way he lived as a bachelor,” and
“parenting issues.”

E.
Discussion

Snowden argues
that the trial court abused its discretion in rejecting his petition because it
is undisputed that Campeanu did not show him the Romanian fertility report and
because there is no other substantial evidence to support the trial court’s
decision. Snowden argues, at different
points, that this court should apply the abuse of discretion, substantial
evidence, and independent standards of review.


We
apply the independent standard of review when the facts are undisputed. (Ghirardo
v. Antonioli (1994) 8 Cal.4th 791, 799.)
To the extent Snowden argues that Campeanu’s failure to show him the
Romanian fertility report is a fact that compels judgment in his favor, we
apply this least deferential standard.
Nevertheless, we reject the argument.
Although it is undisputed that Campeanu did not disclose the fertility
report prior to marriage, proof of the nondisclosure is only one element of
Snowden’s marital fraud claim. Snowden
points to no uncontroverted evidence that would support the other
elements. Accordingly, we reject his
contention that he was entitled to judgment as a matter of law based upon this
single undisputed fact.

To
the extent Snowden maintains that the evidence as a whole does not support the
trial court’s decision, we apply the substantial evidence standard of
review. More precisely, since the trial
court found that Snowden had not carried his burden of proof, the question is
whether the evidence compels a finding in his favor as a matter of law. “Specifically, the question becomes whether
the appellant’s evidence was (1) ‘uncontradicted and unimpeached’ and (2) ‘of
such a character and weight as to leave no room for a judicial determination
that it was insufficient to support a finding.’ ” (In re
I.W. (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 1517, 1528.)
Indeed, Snowden’s argument is, simply, that the facts support his
position. name="citeas((Cite_as:_2012_WL_183534,_*4_(Cal">“If one is going to make a
‘the-facts-compel-that-I-win-as-a-matter-of-law’ argument, one’s brief must
fairly state all the evidence.” (>McCauley v. Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn.
(1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 1255, 1266.)
Snowden cites the evidence supporting his position but precious little
of the evidence submitted by Campeanu.
By failing to fairly state the evidence that was before the trial court,
Snowden has forfeited his substantial evidence argument on appeal. (Chicago Title Ins. Co. v. AMZ Ins.
Services, Inc.
(2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 401, 415.)
Nonetheless, having conducted our own review, we briefly address the
merits.

The
gist of Snowden’s argument is that Campeanu never intended to be a wife to him
and that she wanted the marriage solely to support her application for a green
card. In support of his theory Snowden
alleged that Campeanu refused to have sex with him and failed to disclose her
infertility knowing that he wanted to have a baby. He then described her sudden change in
behavior immediately upon receipt of her green card, which, he claims, shows
that once she got what she wanted she was ready to get out of the
marriage. The trial court rejected
Snowden’s version, finding Campeanu had loved Snowden and intended to be a wife
to him.

As
to Snowden’s claim that Campeanu refused to have sex with him, Campeanu
provided conflicting testimony, stating that the couple had sexual relations
once in the days after the marriage before she returned to Romania and once on
each of Snowden’s subsequent trips to Romania.
She also testified that it was Snowden who declined sex on other
occasions. Snowden’s own declaration
states that he wanted to stop having sex in order to work on deepening their
relationship.

As
to Snowden’s claim that he did not know about Campeanu’s fertility problem,
Campeanu testified differently. There
was also a reference to planned fertility testing in one of her postmarriage
e-mails to him. The materiality of the
issue to Snowden is defeated by his own acknowledgement that he knew fertility
could be a problem given their ages but he never got around to adding Campeanu
to his health insurance so that she could pursue fertility testing or
treatment.

Evidence
that Campeanu’s actual intent was to marry and have a life with Snowden
includes the fact that she obtained the fertility test before she left for San
Jose the first time. If she did not hope
to have a family with Snowden, or intend to have sex with him, there would be
little reason to assess her fertility.
She inspected his e-mail and Internet browsing history to find out just
what kind of man he was. If all she
wanted was a green card one would not expect her to be so concerned with his
extra-marital behavior.

In
the immediate postmarriage period, after Campeanu had returned to Romania and
Snowden refused to communicate with her, Campeanu poured her heart out to
Snowden in her e-mails while also seeking advice about how to get out of a
marriage when her husband would not speak to her. She noted in those inquiries that she was not
interested in pursuing a visa. She just
wanted to know how to end things. Even
after Snowden began communicating again, she gave him the option of ending the
marriage, telling him she would do nothing to fight it if that was what he
wanted.

One
could reasonably infer from the foregoing that Campeanu had intended to be a real
wife to Snowden. The rapidity with which
the marriage deteriorated after Campeanu received her green card does not
compel a contrary conclusion. The couple
did not trust each other from the very outset.
Campeanu checked Snowden’s Internet browsing history. She read his e-mail. What she found raised concerns about his
character. Her snooping, in turn, led
Snowden to mistrust her. His continued
interest in frequent travels and pornography support a finding that he was
ambivalent about the marriage. And there
was significant conflict between Snowden and Campeanu over Campeanu’s parenting
of her younger daughter. Snowden accused
Campeanu of being an “incompetent” mother and, after only weeks together,
asserted himself as the parenting authority in the house. Since the marriage seems to have begun so
shakily, it is reasonable to conclude that it was these further conflicts that
undermined it altogether.

Suffice
it to say that the trial court chose to believe Campeanu’s version of
events. Snowden’s arguments on appeal go
to the weight of the evidence, which was up to the trial court to assess. We cannot say that Campeanu’s testimony was
so inherently unreliable as to be unworthy of belief. “ ‘The cold record cannot give the look or
manner of the witnesses; their hesitations, their doubts, their variations of
language, their precipitancy, their calmness or consideration. A witness may convince all who hear him
testify that he is disingenuous and untruthful, and yet his testimony when
read, may convey a most favorable impression.’ ” (Meiner v. Ford Motor Co. (1971) 17
Cal.App.3d 127, 140.) Thus, “[a]lthough
there was conflicting evidence presented at trial, we are bound by the trial
court’s interpretation of the facts.” (>In re Marriage of Liu, supra,
197 Cal.App.3d at p. 156.)

F.
Disposition

The trial court’s order denying the petition for annulment of
the marriage between petitioner Norris Snowden and respondent Simona N.
Campeanu is affirmed.











Premo,
J.











WE CONCUR:













Rushing, P.J.

















Elia, J.