Heterosexual marriage + hidden homosexuality = fraud?

minikin

I read through a judgment from a appeal case which was heard in the high court recently.
It was a sad case of marital breakdown, alleged Threats of domestic violence etc.
No winners in the situation.

After the marriage breakdown, the wife wants the husband out of the house in order to move her same sex partner in. This is a massive simplification of the case but I was interested in one point:
Aside from it being a voidable marriage has a crime been committed?
Entering a contract of marriage on false pretences? Is it fraudulent?

Peregrinus

Unless there are additional facts not mentioned in the OP, I'm not seeing any "false pretences" on entering into the contract of marriage.

And, even if there were, that's not a crime.

The only crime remotely related to false pretences in connection with marriage is that, if you represent yourself as single single when in fact you are already married to someone, and marry somebody else on the strenght of that representation, you have committed bigamy. But, even there, the crime doesn't lie in the false represtantion; even if you were wholly truthful about your subsisting marriage, you would still commit bigamy by marrying someone else.

minikin

Interesting, so no legal misrepresentation is considered to have occurred when entering into the contract of marriage in this instance? This is what sparked my interest, the judgment covered sexuality and said it was pretty much irrelevant.

Yet the same situation is grounding for a nullity of the marriage contract, as a voidable marriage: “at the time of the marriage ceremony, either party was incapable of entering into and sustaining a proper or normal marriage relationship (due to the sexual orientation of one of the parties)“.

It seems inequitable that one party to a marriage can subsequently declare themselves of a different sexuality and faces no legal consequences, given they have (Falsely) signed a declaration that they know of no legal reason why the marriage can’t happen.

km991148

I don't think anyone in that situation does so with intent.
I wouldn't know the legality of it, but it seems a ridiculous notion that a crime would have been committed.

Morally there are lots of issues, lots of tradegy for all parties and a mess (including a lot of anger probably).
But a crime, I think that's daft.

TP_CM

A marriage is about commitment, not about attraction. You're thinking of a Disney or Hollywood version. Absolutely, the vast majority are physically attracted to each other in the beginning, but there are still some cases where people have arranged marriages, or marry someone because they are the only option locally, or because they want children. The Tom Hanks Meg Ryan story doesn't happen for everyone and certainly doesn't last forever. The point is that physical attraction isn't a requirement for a marriage to work. It just helps an awful lot.

minikin

km991148 wrote: »

I don't think anyone in that situation does so with intent.
I wouldn't know the legality of it, but it seems a ridiculous notion that a crime would have been committed.

Morally there are lots of issues, lots of tradegy for all parties and a mess (including a lot of anger probably).
But a crime, I think that's daft.

“I wouldn’t know the legality of it, but...”

I’m asking questions to ascertain the legality of such an event, not to hear your opinion on the ‘daftness’ or otherwise of the way in which the questions are worded. If you’ve nothing but criticism and ill founded supposition to offer then maybe it’s best if you resile from further contribution.

minikin

TP_CM wrote: »

A marriage is about commitment, not about attraction. You're thinking of a Disney or Hollywood version. Absolutely, the vast majority are physically attracted to each other in the beginning, but there are still some cases where people have arranged marriages, or marry someone because they are the only option locally, or because they want children. The Tom Hanks Meg Ryan story doesn't happen for everyone and certainly doesn't last forever. The point is that physical attraction isn't a requirement for a marriage to work. It just helps an awful lot.

I suppose this is my query, as it’s a legal commitment entered into freely but on a false basis. I would suggest that it goes beyond a matter of simple sexual attraction. Anyone in a marriage will tell you that attraction may wax and wane... but your gender not so much (so if your spouse decides you are the wrong gender there’s not a lot that you can do about that). It’s comparing looks / weight / hygiene with our existential fundamentals.

The person who has misrepresented their sexuality, seems to now be saying to their spouse “you are the wrong gender for me now, you must leave our home, so I can move a third party into our home (with the kids you and I created)”
You’re done, you’ve donated your sperm, contributed to providing a home, out you go... find somewhere else to live, have sparse access to your kids, face the legal bills of disentangling yourself from me... no legal repercussions at all for this?

ohnonotgmail

minikin wrote: »

I suppose this is my query, as it’s a legal commitment entered into freely but on a false basis. I would suggest that it goes beyond a matter of simple sexual attraction. The person who has misrepresented their sexuality, seems to now be saying to their spouse “you are the wrong gender for me now, you must leave our home, so I can move a third party into our home (with our kids)”
You’re done, you’ve donated your sperm, contributed to providing a home, out you go... find somewhere else to live, have sparse access to your kids, face the legal bills of disentangling yourself from me... no legal repercussions at all for this?

Two things:

1) You assume the same sex attraction existed at the time of the marriage
2) There is no crime involved.

TP_CM

minikin wrote: »

I suppose this is my query, as it’s a legal commitment entered into freely but on a false basis. I would suggest that it goes beyond a matter of simple sexual attraction. The person who has misrepresented their sexuality, seems to now be saying to their spouse “you are the wrong gender for me now, you must leave our home, so I can move a third party into our home (with our kids)”
You’re done, you’ve donated your sperm, out you go... no legal repercussions at all for this?

If you think about it, there aren't a million miles between that and a heterosexual marriage where the husband runs off with his young secretary. "You're done. I've gotten what I need. Now out you go".

What you're talking about is one person under the marriage agreement stating they can no longer stay committed to the marriage. It happens every day and most times has nothing to do with sexuality. Sexuality is just one of the drivers. Philip Schofield was married for 27 years and raised what appears to be a lovely family before ending the marriage because he is gay and can no longer stay committed. Then you have Chris Martin who decided he wanted a younger looking blonde, leaving Gwyneth Paltrow at home with a 12 year old and 10 year old.

I don't know why target one group without considering the other. In my opinion, we need less ramifications for ending marriages, not more. Because trapping people into unhealthy relationships is a mental health issue for both sides.

minikin

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Two things:

1) You assume the same sex attraction existed at the time of the marriage
2) There is no crime involved.

I’m asking the questions on the basis that point 1 above could be proven.

Regarding point 2, I’m curious why the following legislation does not apply:

Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act, 2001

6.—(1) A person who dishonestly, with the intention of making a gain for himself or herself or another, or of causing loss to another, by any deception induces another to do or refrain from doing an act is guilty of an offence.

(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on conviction on indictment to a fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years or both.

minikin

TP_CM wrote: »

If you think about it, there aren't a million miles between that and a heterosexual marriage where the husband runs off with his young secretary. "You're done. I've gotten what I need. Now out you go".

What you're talking about is one person under the marriage agreement stating they can no longer stay committed to the marriage. It happens every day and most times has nothing to do with sexuality. Sexuality is just one of the drivers. Philip Schofield was married for 27 years and raised what appears to be a lovely family before ending the marriage because he is gay and can no longer stay committed. Then you have Chris Martin who decided he wanted a younger looking blonde, leaving Gwyneth Paltrow at home with a 12 year old and 10 year old.

I don't know why target one group without considering the other. In my opinion, we need less ramifications for ending marriages, not more. Because trapping people into unhealthy relationships is a mental health issue for both sides.

There may not be a million miles between your example and the point I’m raising but there are enough miles to make it irrelevant. I have no interest in trapping, or arguing for causing someone to remain, in a false marriage... I’m asking if there should be legal responsibility for knowingly initiating such a false marriage and creating devastating mental health, financial and legal issues for the innocent party.

ohnonotgmail

minikin wrote: »

I’m asking the questions on the basis that point 1 above could be proven.

Regarding point 2, I’m curious why the following legislation does not apply:

well there is your problem. How do you prove it? and then you have the problem of proving dishonesty and that they acted dishonestly for the purposes of financial gain.

km991148

minikin wrote: »

“I wouldn’t know the legality of it, but...”

I’m asking questions to ascertain the legality of such an event, not to hear your opinion on the ‘daftness’ or otherwise of the way in which the questions are worded. If you’ve nothing but criticism and ill founded supposition to offer then maybe it’s best if you resile from further contribution.

Maybe it is best, but it's a public forum where you asked opinions, I'm sorry you took offence. None was meant.

Let me rephrase. I'm not a legal expert but I doubt a crime has been committed because there was no intent to make a gain.

I'll keep my opinions of how daft I think the question (and any responses to it) is as well as any sympathy I would have for anyone in that situation to myself.

seamus

minikin wrote: »

Regarding point 2, I’m curious why the following legislation does not apply:

"Intent" is the key word here.

One spouse being gay at the time of the marriage, whether they knew or not, doesn't prove that their intention was fraudulent.

Such matters are not really relevant in marriage.

If you were trying to assert that the spouse's goal was to get married and then take possession of the other spouse's things before kicking them out and moving a new partner in, then the issue of sexuality could be a supporting fact in that case.

But sexuality alone; that is being gay on entering in a heterosexual marriage, does not prove any intent to deceive for personal gain.

minikin

For the avoidance of any doubt:
This is not an anti-homosexual argument, as the basis of my question would equally apply to any marriage between man/woman, man/man or woman/woman... if one party subsequently decided to end the relationship on the basis that they were no longer the sexuality (the gender which they are attracted to and wish to remain in a legal relationship with) they had claimed to be at the point of initiating the marriage.

ohnonotgmail

minikin wrote: »

Interesting, so no legal misrepresentation is considered to have occurred when entering into the contract of marriage in this instance? This is what sparked my interest, the judgment covered sexuality and said it was pretty much irrelevant.

Yet the same situation is grounding for a nullity of the marriage contract, as a voidable marriage: “at the time of the marriage ceremony, either party was incapable of entering into and sustaining a proper or normal marriage relationship (due to the sexual orientation of one of the parties)“.

It seems inequitable that one party to a marriage can subsequently declare themselves of a different sexuality and faces no legal consequences, given they have (Falsely) signed a declaration that they know of no legal reason why the marriage can’t happen.

out of curiosity where did you take that from?

partyguinness

minikin wrote: »

Entering a contract of marriage on false pretences? Is it fraudulent?

No. All that matters is that each party fulfil their contractual obligations.

MintyMagnum

Ever heard of the Kinsey scale?

bocaman

Legally I'd doubt if a crime has been committed. Morally yes without a doubt. I know of one similar incident where the man in the marriage is obviously homosexual and this has been commented on by several people. This couple have grown up children. It's a sad situation where people cant openly express themselves. People only end up getting hurt in the end.

minikin

MintyMagnum wrote: »

Ever heard of the Kinsey scale?

I have indeed. I’ve even seen the movie. Any questions in regard to the legal point being discussed?

minikin

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

out of curiosity where did you take that from?

www.citizensinformation.ie

ohnonotgmail

minikin wrote: »

www.citizensinformation.ie

care to narrow it down a bit?

CIARAN_BOYLE

minikin wrote: »

For the avoidance of any doubt:
This is not an anti-homosexual argument, as the basis of my question would equally apply to any marriage between man/woman, man/man or woman/woman... if one party subsequently decided to end the relationship on the basis that they were no longer the sexuality (the gender which they are attracted to and wish to remain in a legal relationship with) they had claimed to be at the point of initiating the marriage.

Consider a marriage.

X and Y wed. At the time of the marriage Y is involved in a sexual relationship with a 3rd party. X is not aware.

Is Y committing a crime? If so I would imagine we would see it in the courts occasionally. We do not.

If that's not a crime I can't see how a broken marriage during to events that occurred after the fact would be one.

MintyMagnum

How would 'fraud' be proved though? What if a person married an opposite sex partner they loved in good faith and never had a same sex relationship or even a same sex attraction prior to their heterosexual marriage?
What's the proof threshold, having previous same sex partners or would the thought police have to get involved?

3DataModem

TP_CM wrote: »

but there are still some cases where people have arranged marriages

Many, many cases. Still very prevalent in some parts of India, mostly among the higher socioeconomic classes. Worked with a few younger people who had been through it, and they look at non-arranged marriages (i.e. "love matches" as they are called) as risky, vain, and ill-advised. May not be a general view of course, but it was a bit of an eye-opener.

ohnonotgmail

3DataModem wrote: »

Many, many cases. Still very prevalent in some parts of India, mostly among the higher socioeconomic classes. Worked with a few younger people who had been through it, and they look at non-arranged marriages (i.e. "love matches" as they are called) as risky, vain, and ill-advised. May not be a general view of course, but it was a bit of an eye-opener.

still prevalent in Ireland. I know of a couple.

partyguinness

3DataModem wrote: »

Many, many cases. Still very prevalent in some parts of India, mostly among the higher socioeconomic classes. Worked with a few younger people who had been through it, and they look at non-arranged marriages (i.e. "love matches" as they are called) as risky, vain, and ill-advised. May not be a general view of course, but it was a bit of an eye-opener.

I live and work in England and 80-90% of my daily work interaction is with the Asian community. Arranged marriages are the norm. As you said we are talking doctors, lawyers, accountants etc.

I know one lady who is a senior auditor with one of the Big 5 accountancy firms and she had her husband shipped in from India. She never met him beforehand and he was virtually no English. I was surprised to see this as she is highly educated and I would have thought very independent.

In the Sikh community, if you are looking for a husband/wife you literally go to the local Sikh centre and write your name and address in the register and you are then paired up.

Ultimately it is all about controlling resources and assets. The parents motives are purely self serving ensuring they are looked after in old age so they have a vice like grip and control over their children.

One eyed Jack

minikin wrote: »

After the marriage breakdown, the wife wants the husband out of the house in order to move her same sex partner in. This is a massive simplification of the case but I was interested in one point:
Aside from it being a voidable marriage has a crime been committed?
Entering a contract of marriage on false pretences? Is it fraudulent?

You’re not kidding! I take it this is the case you’re referring to?


High Court: Domestic violence ‘never permissible’, guidance to lawyers on raising sexuality in court


It’s grounds for a voidable marriage, it’s not grounds to support any accusation of any criminal wrongdoing -


At the time of the marriage ceremony, either party was incapable of entering into and sustaining a proper or normal marriage relationship. This may be due to a psychiatric illness or personality disorder. It may also be due to the sexual orientation of one of the parties.


Nullity of Marriage


I don’t know where you’d get the impression there was any intent to commit fraud in those circumstances.

minikin

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

care to narrow it down a bit?

https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/birth_family_relationships/civil_annulment/nullity_of_marriage.html

See the section on ‘voidable marriage’.
I look forward to a discussion which is more energetic than your search efforts

ohnonotgmail

minikin wrote: »

https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/birth_family_relationships/civil_annulment/nullity_of_marriage.html

See the section on ‘voidable marriage’.
I look forward to a discussion which is more energetic than your search efforts

what is the connection between the conditions for a voidable marriage and fraud?

minikin

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You’re not kidding! I take it this is the case you’re referring to?


High Court: Domestic violence ‘never permissible’, guidance to lawyers on raising sexuality in court


It’s grounds for a voidable marriage, it’s not grounds to support any accusation of any criminal wrongdoing -


At the time of the marriage ceremony, either party was incapable of entering into and sustaining a proper or normal marriage relationship. This may be due to a psychiatric illness or personality disorder. It may also be due to the sexual orientation of one of the parties.


Nullity of Marriage


I don’t know where you’d get the impression there was any intent to commit fraud in those circumstances.

I know I’m not kidding, I am however looking to ascertain the legality or otherwise of such actions - nothing specific to the case in particular. It was merely a jumping off point for the query.

ohnonotgmail

minikin wrote: »

I know I’m not kidding, I am however looking to ascertain the legality or otherwise of such actions - nothing specific to the case in particular. It was merely a jumping off point for the query.

It has already been explained to you that establishing fraud is a long and difficult road and that merely having an attraction to a member of the opposite sex does not even come close.

minikin

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

what is the connection between the conditions for a voidable marriage and fraud?

If you know there’s no possible connection then state that fact and why it is so, rather than trying to set up a ‘gotcha’.

minikin

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

It has already been explained to you that establishing fraud is a long and difficult road and that merely having an attraction to a member of the opposite sex does not even come close.

Did I ask “does having a mere attraction to the opposite sex establish fraud?”
Keep your straw man for burning tomorrow night.

partyguinness

Fraud is based on intent. It would be nigh impossible to show/prove intent to defraud. Anyway, where is the benefit or unlawful gain?

Plus purely from a policy point of view it would set a very bad precedent if people were allowed to throw around poorly grounded accusations of fraud.

ohnonotgmail

minikin wrote: »

Did I ask “does having a mere attraction to the opposite sex establish fraud?”
Keep your straw man for burning tomorrow night.

I have a feeling you have already decided that a crime has been committed and are looking simply to justify your position.

minikin

For the purposes of getting back on track, I had inserted details in brackets in the following text to make the query clear. Again, don’t get thick, I’m just asking a question.

Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act, 2001

Making gain or causing loss by deception.

6.—(1) A person who dishonestly, with the intention of making a gain [MARITAL ASSETS, FINANCIAL SUPPORT, CHILDREN] for himself or herself or another, or of causing loss [LOSS OF HOME, FINANCIAL ASSETS, CHILDREN] to another, by any deception [CLOSETING OF TRUE SEXUALITY] induces another to do [MARRY] or refrain from doing an act is guilty of an offence.

(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on conviction on indictment to a fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years or both.

minikin

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

I have a feeling you have already decided that a crime has been committed and are looking simply to justify your position.

Your feelings, as valuable and all as I’m sure they are, have nothing to do with the facts of this discussion. If I had decided it was a crime I would have stated same.

GarIT

I wonder at which point the people in this thread will realise bisexuals are actually real.

minikin

partyguinness wrote: »

Fraud is based on intent. It would be nigh impossible to show/prove intent to defraud. Anyway, where is the benefit or unlawful gain?

Plus purely from a policy point of view it would set a very bad precedent if people were allowed to throw around poorly grounded accusations of fraud.

See my post above. It strikes me that people are often allowed ‘throw around poorly grounded accusations’ and to have those accepted as fact in court, based upon the impression the judge forms from the performance of a witness. ‘Finding them credible because they come from the right address/the right family/the right school’ etc.

One eyed Jack

minikin wrote: »

I know I’m not kidding, I am however looking to ascertain the legality or otherwise of such actions - nothing specific to the case in particular. It was merely a jumping off point for the query.

But in order to establish whether fraud was committed, it would depend on the specific circumstances in each case? In this particular case, it was Mr Y’s contention that Ms X wanted him out of the house so that her partner could move in (that appears to be, from your opening post, the basis of your suggesting her intentions were fraudulent), and the Court rejected the assertion -


Mr Y claimed that Ms X had fallen in love with someone else, and that she wanted him out of the house so that her partner could move in. It was the court’s “decided impression” from her evidence that the real reason was because she had long been in constant fear of imminent harm. Mr Y’s emphasis on the fact that Ms X’s “new love is another woman, as though this somehow matters (it does not)”, was not appropriate.

minikin

GarIT wrote: »

I wonder at which point the people in this thread will realise bisexuals are actually real.

Irrelevant. If the person knew (which as an adult we must assume they have considered long and hard before committing to a legal relationship) their true sexuality before the marriage and did not disclose same to their future spouse then that becomes the issue. Entering a legal contract on a false basis.

At what point in the thread will newcomers realise this discussion is about dishonestly entering a legal contract rather than sexuality.

ohnonotgmail

minikin wrote: »

Irrelevant. If the person knew (which as an adult we must assume they have considered long and hard before committing to a legal relationship) their true sexuality before the marriage and did not disclose same to their future spouse then that becomes the issue. Entering a legal contract on a false basis.

At what point in the thread will newcomers realise this discussion is about dishonestly entering a legal contract rather than sexuality.

it becomes an issue. One which may form the basis for annulment. anything further than this will fall on the facts of the case.

minikin

One eyed Jack wrote: »

But in order to establish whether fraud was committed, it would depend on the specific circumstances in each case? In this particular case, it was Mr Y’s contention that Ms X wanted him out of the house so that her partner could move in (that appears to be, from your opening post, the basis of your suggesting her intentions were fraudulent), and the Court rejected the assertion -


Mr Y claimed that Ms X had fallen in love with someone else, and that she wanted him out of the house so that her partner could move in. It was the court’s “decided impression” from her evidence that the real reason was because she had long been in constant fear of imminent harm. Mr Y’s emphasis on the fact that Ms X’s “new love is another woman, as though this somehow matters (it does not)”, was not appropriate.

I’m familiar with the judgement, having read through all 16 sad pages of it, thanks.

Let’s be VERY CLEAR here, I have not at any point “suggested that Ms Y’s intentions were fraudulent”. Please withdraw that. It was for this very reason that I discussed this in generalities from the beginning.

It’s the principle of law surrounding such an event I’m interested not the rights or wrongs of a particular case.

GarIT

minikin wrote: »

Irrelevant. If the person knew (which as an adult we must assume they have considered long and hard before committing to a legal relationship) their true sexuality before the marriage and did not disclose same to their future spouse then that becomes the issue. Entering a legal contract on a false basis.

At what point in the thread will newcomers realise this discussion is about dishonestly entering a legal contract rather than sexuality.

Prove they knew.

If someone can't realise their partner isn't happy in the bedroom then it's their own fault.

minikin

GarIT wrote: »

Prove they knew.

If someone can't realise their partner isn't happy in the bedroom then it's their own fault.

Hypothetically: a previous (predating the marriage) same-sex partner of the person who wants to end the relationship comes forward as a witness for the wronged party.

Jesus, nice bit of victim blaming there.

ohnonotgmail

minikin wrote: »

Hypothetically: a previous (predating the marriage) same-sex partner of the person who wants to end the relationship comes forward as a witness for the wronged party.

that doesn't prove anything. sexuality is not black and white.

One eyed Jack

minikin wrote: »

I’m familiar with the judgement, having read through all 16 sad pages of it, thanks.

Let’s be VERY CLEAR here, I have not at any point “suggested that Ms Y’s intentions were fraudulent”. Please withdraw that. It was for this very reason that I discussed this in generalities from the beginning.

It’s the principle of law surrounding such an event I’m interested not the rights or wrongs of a particular case.

I won’t withdraw it because you didn’t discuss it in generalities from the beginning! It forms the basis of your opening post, and it forms the basis of your argument that it should be assumed her intent was to commit fraud -

minikin wrote: »

After the marriage breakdown, the wife wants the husband out of the house in order to move her same sex partner in. This is a massive simplification of the case

hullaballoo

Moderator: minikin, please do not attempt to moderate the discussion on this forum. It is for the moderators to moderate. There is an expectation of minimum standards of civility as well so the spoiling for a row schtick is inappropriate also.

Please have a read of the forum charter before posting here again https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057083888

minikin

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

that doesn't prove anything. sexuality is not black and white.

Give over, the issue isn’t fifty shades of sexuality, it’s the question of whether a fraudulent act has occurred either by commission or omission.

ohnonotgmail

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I won’t withdraw it because you didn’t discuss it in generalities from the beginning! It forms the basis of your opening post, and it forms the basis of your argument that it should be assumed her intent was to commit fraud -

and even that was not correct. that the wife wanted him out so she could move her partner in was an assumption on the part of the husband not a statement of fact.