Background
Christopher Medina and Mahjouba Riyahi began an online relationship in 2020 while Medina lived in the United States and Riyahi lived in Morocco. They married in Morocco in March 2021. Medina sent Riyahi financial support before and during the marriage, and Riyahi moved to the United States in November 2024.
Medina petitioned for an annulment in March 2025, alleging that Riyahi had married him under false pretenses and seeking repayment of more than $30,000 he said he had sent to assist her family. The superior court granted the annulment but denied reimbursement, finding that the payments were gifts and that Medina had not established the amount sought.
The Court’s Holding
The Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed. Medina did not provide a transcript of the superior-court hearing, so the appellate court presumed that the missing record supported the ruling.
The court also concluded that sufficient evidence supported the finding that the payments were gifts. Riyahi testified that the support was a gift from husband to wife, and the text messages admitted at the hearing showed her asking Medina for money and Medina agreeing to send it, but did not show a promise to repay him. That evidence supported the ruling regardless of whether the marriage was valid.
Key Takeaways
- An appellant who does not provide the hearing transcript risks a presumption that it supports the trial court’s ruling.
- Whether a transfer was a gift is a factual question, and appellate courts defer to supported factual findings.
- Medina did not establish a due-process violation where he acknowledged he testified and submitted 28 exhibits.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the importance of preserving the appellate record in disputes over alleged loans between spouses or partners. It also shows that a later annulment does not itself convert prior financial support into a reimbursable debt.