Husband Failed to Counter Wife’s Evidence of Philippine Divorce When Alleging Bigamy

Tennessee case summary on annulment and/or divorce.

Jonah Paul Anders v. Mayla C. Anders

The husband and wife in this Shelby County, Tennessee, case were married in 2012 in Las Vegas and had two children.  In 2014, the husband filed for an annulment on the grounds that at the time of their marriage, the wife was still married to another man.

The trial court, Judge Gina C. Higgins, granted a divorce, but not an annulment.  The trial court found that the wife’s previous marriage had ended in divorce pursuant to Philippine laws.  The parties were awarded their separate property, and the husband was ordered to pay $750 per month in transitional alimony for 24 years.  Child support was set at $779 per month.  Post-trial matters followed in both the trial and appellate court, and the case became final in 2021.  At that time, the Tennessee Court of Appeals considered the husband’s appeal.

The husband argued that the trial court erred in granting a divorce rather than an annulment.

On the issue of bigamy, the trial court had ruled that the husband was not credible, and that the wife had indeed been divorced under the “standards and laws” of the Philippines.

The husband, who was acting as his own lawyer on appeal, argued that the trial court erred in “refusing to allow the preponderance of his evidence” regarding the annulment.  The appeals court construed this as a challenge to the court’s factual findings.  But the court held that it could not review the facts of the case de novo, particularly since there was no transcript or other appropriate record to consider.

After reviewing the lower court’s findings, the appeals court agreed that there was no error, and that the lower court had properly granted a divorce rather than an annulment.  It therefore affirmed the lower court’s decree in all respects.

The opinion of the court was authored by Judge Arnold B. Goldin, and Judges J. Steven Stafford and Carma Dennis McGee joined.

No. W2018–02172-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 22,  2021).

See original opinion for exact language.  Legal citations omitted.

To learn more, see The Tennessee Divorce Process: How Divorces Work Start to Finish.