FSM 6 Intrm. 203-205

A marriage procured and induced by fraud is void ab initio and the party whose consent was so procured is entitled to a judgment annulling the marriage. Burrow v. Burrow, 6 FSM Intrm. 203, 204-05 (Pon. 1993).

This action coming on regularly for trial before this Court on September 13, 1993, the Plaintiff appearing by Martin Mix, her attorney, and the Defendant failing to appear, the Court, having heard the evidence, decides and finds as follows:

1. That Plaintiff and Defendant were married on December 3, 1992 in Kolonia, Pohnpei.

2. That during the fall semester of 1992, both the Defendant and the Plaintiff were at the Community College of Micronesia. Defendant was a professor and Plaintiff was a full time student.

3. That the Defendant first made his desire to marry the Plaintiff known to the Plaintiff in October of 1992.

4. That the Plaintiff told the Defendant that she could not marry him.

5. That the Defendant, without the Plaintiff's knowledge, went to Kosrae and met the Plaintiff's parents.

6. That the Plaintiff's father, Hemul Aliksa, told the Defendant that the Defendant could meet the Plaintiff if the Plaintiff so desired.

7. That the Defendant returned to Pohnpei on or about December 1, 1992 and told the Plaintiff that her father had told the Defendant that the Plaintiff must marry the Defendant.

8. That the Defendant prevented the Plaintiff from contacting her parents until they married.

9. That the Defendant, following Kosrae custom that a daughter must obey her father in matters such as this, married the Defendant.

10. That after the marriage the Defendant did his best to keep the Plaintiff from having contact with any of her family or friends who lived on Pohnpei.

11. That the Plaintiff's parents came to Pohnpei and met with the Plaintiff on the afternoon of December 13, 12992.

12, That the Plaintiff's parents told the Plaintiff that they had not mandated the marriage but had only given permission for the Defendant to talk to the Plaintiff.

13. That the Plaintiff told the Defendant that she would not go back with the Defendant.

14. That the Defendant immediately assaulted the Plaintiff in the presence of her parents and other family members.

The Plaintiff is entitled to judgment, annulling the marriage between the Plaintiff

and Defendant, solemnized on December 3, 1993, on the ground that the marriage was induced and procured by fraud which rendered the marriage void ab initio.


	THE SUPREME COURT OF THE FEDERATED STATES OF MICRONESIA Cite as Burrow v. Burrow , 6 FSM Intrm. 203 (Pohnpei 1993) [6 FSM Intrm. 203] MARTHA ALIKSA BURROW Plaintiff, vs. ROBERT KYLE BURROW Defendant. CIVIL ACTION NO. 1992-154 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Martin Yinug Associate Justice Trial: September 13, 1993 Decided: September 24, 1993 APPEARANCES: For the Plaintiff: Mat Mix, Esq. P.O. Box 143 Kolonia, Pohnpei FM 96941 For the Defendant: R. Kyle Burrow (pro se) 257 M Pa St. A-553 Dededo, Guam 96912 * * * * HEADNOTE Domestic Relations A marriage procured and induced by fraud is void ab initio and the party whose consent was so procured is entitled to a judgment annulling the marriage. Burrow v. Burrow, 6 FSM Intrm. 203, 204-05 (Pon. 1993). * * * * [6 FSM Intrm. 204] MARTIN YINUG, Associate Justice: This action coming on regularly for trial before this Court on September 13, 1993, the Plaintiff appearing by Martin Mix, her attorney, and the Defendant failing to appear, the Court, having heard the evidence, decides and finds as follows: Findings of Fact 1. That Plaintiff and Defendant were married on December 3, 1992 in Kolonia, Pohnpei. 2. That during the fall semester of 1992, both the Defendant and the Plaintiff were at the Community College of Micronesia. Defendant was a professor and Plaintiff was a full time student. 3. That the Defendant first made his desire to marry the Plaintiff known to the Plaintiff in October of 1992. 4. That the Plaintiff told the Defendant that she could not marry him. 5. That the Defendant, without the Plaintiff's knowledge, went to Kosrae and met the Plaintiff's parents. 6. That the Plaintiff's father, Hemul Aliksa, told the Defendant that the Defendant could meet the Plaintiff if the Plaintiff so desired. 7. That the Defendant returned to Pohnpei on or about December 1, 1992 and told the Plaintiff that her father had told the Defendant that the Plaintiff must marry the Defendant. 8. That the Defendant prevented the Plaintiff from contacting her parents until they married. 9. That the Defendant, following Kosrae custom that a daughter must obey her father in matters such as this, married the Defendant. 10. That after the marriage the Defendant did his best to keep the Plaintiff from having contact with any of her family or friends who lived on Pohnpei. 11. That the Plaintiff's parents came to Pohnpei and met with the Plaintiff on the afternoon of December 13, 12992. 12, That the Plaintiff's parents told the Plaintiff that they had not mandated the marriage but had only given permission for the Defendant to talk to the Plaintiff. 13. That the Plaintiff told the Defendant that she would not go back with the Defendant. 14. That the Defendant immediately assaulted the Plaintiff in the presence of her parents and other family members. Conclusions of Law The Plaintiff is entitled to judgment, annulling the marriage between the Plaintiff [6 FSM Intrm. 205] and Defendant, solemnized on December 3, 1993, on the ground that the marriage was induced and procured by fraud which rendered the marriage void ab initio. * * * *