Marriage of Haaswyk CA4/1

Filed 6/18/24 Marriage of Haaswyk CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

In re the Marriage of ROY and LETICIA HAASWYK. D083306 ROY HAASWYK,

Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. RID1801244)

v.

LETICIA HAASWYK,

Respondent.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Riverside County, Cheryl C. Murphy, Judge. Dismissed. Brandon C. Roesler for Appellant. Oscar E. Toscano for Respondent.

Roy Haaswyk purports to appeal an order denying his request for an annulment of his marriage to Leticia Haaswyk. The order is not appealable, and the record contains no other order or judgment that is appealable and would allow us to review the challenged order. We dismiss the appeal.

BACKGROUND The parties met in May 2012, when neither was a citizen of the United States. Roy became a citizen in November 2013. He and Leticia consulted attorneys in March 2014 to inquire how marriage would affect her immigration status. The parties married in September 2014. Several months later, Leticia’s conditional residency was approved. The parties separated in February 2018. Roy filed a petition for dissolution of marriage the following April. In May 2020, Roy filed a request for order to amend the petition to change it from one for dissolution to one for nullity. The alleged ground for nullity of the marriage was that Leticia had obtained Roy’s consent by fraud.

(See Fam. Code, § 2210, subd. (d).)1 Specifically, Roy alleged Leticia never intended to remain faithful to him and married him only to become a citizen or permanent resident of the United States. In support of the request, Roy submitted a proposed amended petition, a declaration describing his relationship with Leticia and the reasons he suspected her of fraud, and exhibits. Leticia filed opposition to Roy’s request for order. She contended there was no basis to annul the marriage, because the parties had lived together and shared a full intimate relationship for years, and separated when Roy became emotionally, verbally, and physically abusive. Leticia denied Roy’s allegation that she married him only so that she could become a citizen or