PONDO v. WAZIRI (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Alfred Pondo (“Husband”) appeals the trial court's order denying his petition to annul his marriage to Mwanamisi Waziri (“Wife”). We find that Husband's challenge to the ruling is waived because his appellant's brief fails to comply with our Appellate Rules. We further find that, waiver notwithstanding, Husband has not shown prima facie error in the trial court's ruling. Accordingly, we affirm.

Issue

[2] Husband raises three issues. We consolidate and restate the issue as whether Husband has shown prima facie error in the trial court's ruling.

Facts

[3] Husband began dating Wife in 2019. At the time, Wife was living in Nairobi, Kenya, and was married to Joel Mayanya Mokonya (“Ex-Husband”), with whom she has three daughters. Husband and Wife had plans for Wife to immigrate to the United States with her daughters and marry Husband. Husband told Wife that she would need to obtain a divorce decree so he could petition for a K-1 visa (also known as a “fiancé[e] visa”) for her. Tr. Vol. II p. 53.

[4] Wife obtained a divorce decree in Kenya in April 2021, Husband successfully petitioned for the visa, and Wife and her daughters arrived in the United States on July 7, 2023. Husband and Wife married on July 11, 2023. They lived together but slept in separate bedrooms at Wife's request. Wife received her Green Card in November 2023.

[5] In January 2024, Husband began to suspect that Wife's divorce decree was not valid and that she was still married to Ex-Husband. He saw on social media photographs of Wife with Ex-Husband and Ex-Husband's family in 2021, 2022, and 2023, and he saw social media posts from that time period describing Wife as still being Ex-Husband's wife.

[6] Husband petitioned for a dissolution of the marriage on March 28, 2024. Wife and her daughters moved out of the house in May 2024. Husband wrote a letter to the United States Ambassador to Kenya claiming that Wife's divorce decree was “forged.” Ex. Vol. p. 27.

[7] On September 12, 2024, before the dissolution of marriage was adjudicated, Husband also filed a petition for annulment of the marriage. Husband alleged that his marriage to Wife was “invalid due to the fact that ․ [Wife] was still legally married to a third party ․”¹

[8] The trial court held a hearing on the petition for annulment on February 7, 2025, at which Husband appeared pro se. Husband admitted into evidence the divorce decree between Wife and Ex-Husband and text messages between Husband and Wife. Many of the text messages are not in English. Husband offered a third-party translation of the messages, which the trial court excluded on hearsay grounds.

[9] Husband called as witnesses Anthony Nyajiamo and Grace Otticha, who testified via Webex from Kenya, and Husband's sister, Agnes Pondo. Nyajiamo is Ex-Husband's “distant cousin” and testified that, “[t]o the best of my knowledge, [Wife] is married to [Ex-Husband].” Tr. Vol. II p. 9. Nyajiamo last spoke with Wife in September 2022. Otticha is a friend and neighbor of Ex-Husband's family. She also testified that Wife is “married” to Ex-Husband. Id. at 13. Otticha had not seen Wife in “a few years.” Id. at 14. Agnes testified that she is best friends with Ex-Husband's sister, Pamela, and according to Pamela, Wife is still married to Ex-Husband.

[10] Husband testified and claimed that Wife's divorce decree was invalid because “under Muslim law, you and your husband have to go together to the Kadhi” to obtain a divorce. Id. at 43. According to Husband, Ex-Husband did not go to the Kadhi with Wife, and Wife obtained the divorce decree “behind [Ex-Husband's] back.” Id. at 44. Wife testified and denied that the divorce decree was invalid.

[11] The trial court took the matter under advisement and, on February 14, 2025, issued a written order denying the petition for annulment. The trial court found as follows:

3. Husband claims that Wife is still married to [Ex-Husband] who resides in Kenya.

4. Husband and Wife were living in matrimonial harmony (to include multiple instances of consummating their marriage) until January 2024, at which time Husband discovered perceived fraud in the marriage, namely the belief that Wife was still married to [Ex-Husband].

5. Husband and Wife continued to live under the same household from January 2024 until May 2024, at which time Husband evicted Wife from the Marital Residence. Husband first asked Wife to leave in March of 2024.

6. Husband presented evidence that Wife has been seen with [Ex-Husband] in Kenya since the divorce between Wife and [Ex-Husband] was finalized to including living in the same family compound before Wife moved to the United States.

7. Husband presented witnesses that they have interacted with Wife and [Ex-Husband] and believed them to be husband and wife.

8. The Court does not find the testimony of Husband's witnesses persuasive given their infrequent and untimely contact with Wife.

9. The Court gives persuasive weight to the Decree of Dissolution issued in Kenya (hereinafter “Kenya Decree”); Parties submitted the same Kenya Decree into evidence without objection, Petitioner's Exhibit 2 and Respondent's Exhibit B.

10. The Kenya Decree shows a date of divorce of April 20, 2021 with a registration/issuance date of June 7, 2021. The Kenya Decree was granted through the Islamic Courts, which ha[ve] jurisdiction over issuing marriage certificates and granting divorces in Kenya.

11. Husband secured a K-1 Visa for Wife to reside in the United States. For the K1 Visa to be granted, a valid divorce decree would need to be submitted to U.S. authorities.

12. Husband's argument that Wife and [Ex-Husband] being seen together between 2021 and 2023 and social media posts referencing Wife in context as a spouse to [Ex-Husband] prior to arriving to the United States meaning that they are still married is without merit.

13. Even taking Husband's arguments as true regarding Wife's association with [Ex-Husband], nothing precludes Wife and [Ex-Husband] being seen together or even residing together after the divorce was granted in 2021.

14. The Court finds that Wife was an unmarried person at the time of marrying Husband.

15. For the foregoing, Husband has not met his burden of voiding the Parties’ marriage consistent with I.C. 31-11-8-2 or 31-11-10-2. Further, Wife has met her burden pursuant to I.C. 31-11-10-2(c) that the Parties were cohabitating after the discovery of the alleged fraud.

16. The Court DENIES Husband's Motion.

* * * * *

Appellant's App. Vol. II pp. 13-15. Husband now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[12] Husband challenges the denial of his petition for annulment. As an initial matter, we note that Husband proceeds in this appeal pro se, as he did before the trial court. Under Indiana law, “ ‘a pro se litigant is held to the same standards as a trained attorney and is afforded no inherent leniency simply by virtue of being self-represented.’ ” Stark v. State, 204 N.E.3d 957, 963 (Ind. Ct. App. 2023) (quoting Zavodnik v. Harper, 17 N.E.3d 259, 266 (Ind. 2014)). Like a trained attorney, a pro se defendant is responsible for “following procedural and evidentiary rules.” Jefferson v. State, 891 N.E.2d 77, 87 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (citing Piper v. State, 770 N.E.2d 880, 883 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002), trans. denied), trans. denied.

I. Standard of Review

[13] In adjudicating the petition for annulment, the trial court entered sua sponte findings of fact and conclusions thereon. “ ‘As to the issues covered by the findings, we apply the two-tiered standard of whether the evidence supports the findings, and whether the findings support the judgment.’ ” Hahn-Weisz v. Johnson, 189 N.E.3d 1136, 1141 (Ind. Ct. App. 2022) (quoting In re S.D., 2 N.E.3d 1283, 1287 (Ind. 2014)). “We reverse ‘the findings only if they are clearly erroneous.’ ” Id. (quoting In re Adoption of I.B., 32 N.E.3d 1164, 1169 (Ind. 2015)). “We review any remaining issues under the general judgment standard, under which we will affirm the judgment ‘if it can be sustained on any legal theory supported by the evidence.’ ” Id. (quoting S.D., 2 N.E.3d at 1287). “We neither reweigh the evidence nor judge the credibility of the witnesses, and we review the trial court's legal conclusions de novo.” Id. (quoting Perkinson v. Perkinson, 989 N.E.2d 758, 761 (Ind. 2013)).

[14] We also note that Wife did not file an appellee's brief. Under these circumstances, “the appellate court need not develop an argument for the appellees but instead will ‘reverse the trial court's judgment if the appellant's brief presents a case of prima facie error.’ ” Salyer v. Washington Regular Baptist Church Cemetery, 141 N.E.3d 384, 386 (Ind. 2020) (quoting Front Row Motors, LLC v. Jones, 5 N.E.3d 753, 758 (Ind. 2014)). “Prima facie error in this context means ‘at first sight, on first appearance, or on the face of it.’ ” Id. This less stringent standard of review relieves us of the burden of controverting arguments advanced in favor of reversal where that burden properly rests with the appellee. See, e.g., Jenkins v. Jenkins, 17 N.E.3d 350, 352 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014). We are obligated, however, to correctly apply the law to the facts in the record in order to determine whether reversal is required. Id.

II. Husband's arguments are waived, and waiver notwithstanding, he has not shown prima facie error in the trial court's ruling.

[15] Although Husband challenges the trial court's denial of his petition for annulment, we find that Husband's challenge to the trial court's ruling is waived because Husband's brief fails to comply with our appellate rules. Husband's brief does not contain an “Argument” section, nor does he provide any “citations to the authorities, statutes, and the Appendix or parts of the Record on Appeal relied on[.]” Ind. App. R. 46(A)(8)(a). Instead, his arguments consist of several sentences without citation in the “Issues” section of his brief. This impairs our ability to adjudicate his challenge and results in waiver. See Miller v. Patel, 212 N.E.3d 639, 657 (Ind. 2023).

[16] Waiver notwithstanding, Husband has not shown prima facie error in the trial court's ruling. Indiana Code Section 31-11-8-2 provides, “A marriage is void if either party to the marriage had a wife or husband who was living when the marriage was solemnized.” Husband argues that his marriage to Wife is void and should be annulled because Wife was still married to Ex-Husband, and the Kenyan divorce decree is invalid.

[17] “[U]nless strong public policy exceptions require otherwise, the law of the place where a marriage occurs generally determines the validity of a marriage.” McPeek v. McCardle, 888 N.E.2d 171, 175 (Ind. 2008) (citing Bolkovac v. State, 98 N.E.2d 250, 254 (Ind. 1951)). Husband has not offered any briefing regarding Kenyan divorce law. At trial, he offered a document issued by the Kenyan Office of the Prime Cabinet Secretary and Ministry of Diaspora Affairs, which provides that Islamic divorce decrees are issued by the “Chief Kadhi or Deputy Chief Kadhi.” Ex. Vol. p. 6. Wife's divorce decree bears the seal of the “Kadhi's Court” and appears to contain Wife's and Ex-Husband's signature. The document was reviewed by United States immigration authorities in granting the K-1 visa for Wife. Wife testified at the hearing that she was legally divorced from Ex-Husband.

[18] Husband argues: (1) the divorce decree was “fraudulent”; (2) the trial court failed to “consider all evidence”; and (3) the trial court did “not disclos[e] specific reasons why he found that all [of Husband's] witnesses ․ [were] unreliable ․” Appellant's Br. p. 4. Contrary to Husband's arguments, nothing suggests that the trial court ignored evidence, and the trial court explained that it found Husband's witnesses not credible because of their “infrequent and untimely contact with Wife.” Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 14. Several of Husband's witnesses had not communicated with Wife in years. Moreover, we cannot reweigh the trial court's determination of the witnesses’ credibility. See Hahn-Weisz, 189 N.E.3d at 1141 (citing Perkinson, 989 N.E.2d at 761). Additionally, the trial court found the divorce decree was “persuasive” and that Husband had not carried his burden of proving that the document was fraudulent. Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 14.

[19] Given the evidence presented during the hearing, and Husband's sparse arguments on appeal, we are unable to find prima facie error in the trial court's ruling. Accordingly, we affirm.

Conclusion

[20] Husband's challenge to the trial court's ruling is waived. Waiver notwithstanding, Husband has not shown prima facie error in the trial court's ruling. Accordingly, we affirm.

[21] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The petition for annulment is not included in the appellate record. We take judicial notice of the document available on the Odyssey database. See Evid. R. 201(a)(2)(C).

Tavitas, Judge.

Vaidik, J., and Felix, J., concur.