Marital Fraud Damage Award Voided : Divorce law: Man had persuaded jury that ex-wife duped him by concealing lack of sexual passion. Appeals panel says such matters are ‘best left to advice columnists.’

In a unique fraud case that jurists labeled “Sex, Lies and Trust Agreements,” an appeals court panel on Thursday reversed a $242,000 damage award to an Anaheim banker who had persuaded a jury that his former wife duped him by concealing her lack of sexual passion for him.

“These are matters best left to advice columnists than to judges and juries,” concluded a three judge-panel of the 4th District Court of Appeal. “We agree that courts should not be in the business of probing a suitor’s state of mind.”

The panel’s 31-page ruling was prompted by the divorce of Pacific Inland Bank President Ronald Askew, 50, and his former wife of 11 years, Bonnette Askew, 46. Askew sued his ex-wife for fraud in civil court after she admitted during marriage counseling that she had hidden the fact that she felt no physical attraction for him before or during their marriage.

Last year, an Orange County Superior Court jury sided with Ronald Askew, ordering Bonnette Askew to give up her share of four jointly owned parcels of property valued at about $242,000.

Thursday, she said that she was relieved and elated with the outcome of the case.

“The reason that this has gone on so long is that he flat-out wanted to destroy me. And when a person becomes obsessed, they lose all concept of proportion,” said Bonnette Askew, who added that the legal battleground eventually became a high-stakes poker game.

Between the lawsuits in civil court and the legal skirmishes in family court, Bonnette Askew estimated that the couple’s legal costs approach $500,000.

Ronald Askew was not available for comment Thursday. His attorney, Albert M. Graham Jr., said he was disappointed with the appellate court ruling but needed more time to study the opinion before deciding on a next step.

Legal experts had predicted that the verdict--if upheld--could have spawned copycat lawsuits, reshaping the California concept that property must be split evenly upon divorce. The case attracted worldwide publicity and sparked debate about how far the the legal system should go in regulating romance.

On Thursday, the appeals court also raised concerns that such lawsuits could have played havoc with California’s no-fault divorce system and its “anti-heart balm” statutes. The laws, which date back to the 1930s, were passed to prevent jilted lovers from using the civil courts to seek damages as a “heart balm” for the pain of a broken engagement.

“Words of love, passion and sexual desire are simply unsuited to the cumbersome stricture of common law fraud and deceit,” wrote Judge David Sills in a section of the opinion titled: “Sex, Lies and Trust Agreements.”

“The idea that a judge, or jury of 12 solid citizens, can arbitrate whether an individual’s romantic declarations are true or false, or made with intent to deceive, seems almost ridiculously wooden,” Sills wrote.

The Askews were granted a divorce in 1992. But in a separate civil trial, Ronald Askew charged that four pieces of property the couple owned should not be included as community property in their divorce settlement.

Before the marriage, Ronald Askew said he pleaded for honesty, asking his future bride if there was anything he should know. Ronald Askew argued that he would not have married Bonnette Askew or made her joint owner of the properties if he had known she considered him physically undesirable.

Graham said that Ronald Askew could appeal the decision, ask for a new hearing on the issue before the same panel of judges, or return to family court to settle the issue of community property.