News Paper Coverage

Los Angeles Times
March 30, 1993, Tuesday, Orange County Edition
Metro; Part B; Page 1; Column 4; Metro Desk
HEADLINE: MAN SUES EX-WIFE FOR FRAUD, CLAIMS SHE NEVER LOVED HIM;
BYLINE: By MARK I. PINSKY, TIMES STAFF WRITER
DATELINE: SANTA ANA
BODY:

Taking a novel approach to matrimony and litigation, an Anaheim banker is charging that his ex-wife defrauded him because she did not love him when they were married 16 years ago.

The Santa Ana couple, Ronald Askew, 50, and Bonette Askew, 46, were granted a divorce in November, 1992. At the time, a court ruled that they should have joint custody of their two children.

But in a separate civil trial that began Monday, Ronald Askew is claiming that four pieces of property he owned before his marriage to Bonette Askew should not be included as community property in their divorce settlement. The trial has interrupted a final property settlement in divorce court.

Under California divorce law, responsibility for the failure of a marriage does not affect the division of community property. Thus, attorneys for both sides said, a suit alleging fraud is the only remaining avenue for Ronald Askew to remove the four pieces of property from the settlement.

Ronald Askew, president of Pacific Inland Bank, has cited statements made by his ex-wife in pretrial depositions as well as remarks made in a joint counseling session in March, 1991, to show that she never loved him.

"This case is about breach of trust," Ronald Askew said Monday. "It is nothing about breach of love. It's about the fact that, prior to my marriage, certain statements were made to me that I believe (were) false. And that, after my marriage I conveyed certain of my assets into the name of my ex-wife that were to be held in trust for the benefit of my older children" from a previous marriage.

Bonette Askew described her husband as "a man who likes to be in control of everything, and when he found that he wasn't in control of our situation . . . he decided to try to go after everything."

In her view, Bonette Askew said, the case is about "power and control and trying to get back at me, trying to destroy me."

Court Transcripts

RONALD L. ASKEW, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. BONNETTE M.
ASKEW, Defendant and Appellant.
Nos. G014021, G014610, G014892.
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE
22 Cal. App. 4th 942; 1994 Cal. App. LEXIS 131; 28 Cal.
Rptr. 2d 284; 94 Cal. Daily Op. Service 1243; 94 Daily
Journal DAR 2151

This is a case of fraud: before the plaintiff married the defendant, his bride-to-be told him she felt sexual attraction for him, and in reliance on that statement he married her and put certain parcels of real property (which he claims are his separate property) into both their names as joint tenants. Thirteen years and two children after his marriage to the defendant he sued her, claiming she "never" felt sexual attraction for him and her "fraud" justified imposing a trust on her share of certain property taken in joint tenancy.

II. FACTS AND LEGAL HISTORY

Ronald and Bonnette Askew married on December 9, 1977. They had two children, a girl born in 1979 and a boy born in 1982, and in May 1991, Bonnette filed for dissolution. Ronald filed his response by July 5. In October 1991, five months after the dissolution action was filed, Ronald filed a separate civil lawsuit for fraud and spin-off causes of action.

The complaint was expressly predicated on five premarital "representations" made in the summer and fall of 1977 by Bonnette to Ronald:

--She "loved, desired, and cared for" him, and wanted to marry him "solely because of the affection and desire she had for him."

--She answered "nothing," when asked "if there was anything he should know before they got married."

--Her "actions prior to the marriage" (the complaint did not specify what actions) "were performed to show" that she did, in fact "physically desire and have passion" and, further, were indeed "performed for the purpose of inducing" him to marry her.

The complaint then listed a total of 10 properties which, it claimed, had been purchased with Ronald's separate funds; title to these properties, however, had been put in joint tenancy because of Bonnette's representations. (Nine of the ten properties had been acquired after the marriage.)

After a few preliminaries, the opening statement on Ronald's behalf began by recounting something Bonnette had said at a counseling session in 1991, just prior to the commencement of dissolution: "Ron, I have not been fair to you in this marriage. I haven't loved you. I haven't been honest with you. I feel like I have cheated you." Ronald's counsel then went on to emphasize that the remaining five pieces had been acquired with Ronald's separate property as part of an "investment plan" intended to benefit Ronald's two children. Counsel then referred to Bonnette's lack of passion and sexual attraction for Ronald at the inception of the marriage, and how Ronald would never have married her or put any of his property in her name if he had known of it. After the opening statement Bonnette made a motion for nonsuit, which was denied.

From the transcript: "You are going to hear depositions, Bonnie's depositions, basically, go to the fact that she's going to say prior to marrying Ron Askew, prior to marrying him, I knew I had no passion, no desire, physical or sexual for Ron Askew. I had no desire for the man. . .. Ron Askew is going to say, 'I wouldn't have married her. I wouldn't have married her. But I wouldn't have put my property in her name. For heaven's sake, I could have held my property by myself.'"

Ronald testified there were "numerous discussions" with Bonnette about "passion, desire or physical attraction" before their marriage. Bonnette said (in Ronald's words) "that she loved me. That she had this lust, this passion, this desire. That I could trust her. That I could believe in her." Later he testified that Bonnette "described the passion as being this--this--this--this--love. This--this sexual desire. This--this strong commitment. This great endorsement for me as a person." She also said, "I am honest with you. I will always be honest with you. You can trust me. You can believe in me. I will not lie to you." Many times Ronald asked her to tell him "if there's anything I should know about our marriage, or anything about our relationship, be honest with me. Tell me. Tell me before the marriage." Bonnette said there was "nothing" Ronald "need[ed] to know."

Ronald then testified he relied on these statements in transferring the five properties "into her name." (Four of the five properties were acquired after the marriage.) But he would not have transferred the properties if he had "known the truth" (referring to the revelations from the 1991 counseling session) that he knew "now"--i.e., that she really had no desire for him "physically" or "sexually," that she had no "passion" for him prior to the marriage, or "during" the marriage.

Bonnette was called as part of Ronald's case-in-chief. She admitted that she did not have sexual desire for Ronald prior to or during the marriage, even though she "may," at one point "early on in the relationship," have told Ronald that the two of them had a "very satisfying" sexual relationship. Ronald also called a friend of the Askews who testified that in about 1989 while at dinner at a local restaurant Bonnette told her that she did not love Ronald when they first got married.