In Idaho you can annul your marriage or receive an annulment if certain conditions are met. Annulments are rare and you should speak to an attorney to see if it is advantageous or whether a divorce is the proper way to move forward.
As per Idaho Code Sec. 32-501 you must:
32-501. GROUNDS OF ANNULMENT. A marriage may be annulled for any of the following causes, existing at the time of the marriage:
1. That the party in whose behalf it is sought to have the marriage annulled was under the age of legal consent, and such marriage was contracted without the consent of his or her parents or guardian, or persons having charge of him or her; unless, after attaining the age of consent, such party for any time freely cohabits with the other as husband or wife;
2. That the former husband or wife of either party was living, and the marriage with such former husband or wife was then in force;
3. That either party was of unsound mind, unless such party, after coming to reason, freely cohabited with the other as husband or wife;
4. That the consent of either party was obtained by fraud, unless such party afterward, with full knowledge of the facts constituting the fraud, freely cohabited with the other as husband or wife;
5. That the consent of either party was obtained by force, unless such party afterwards freely cohabited with the other as husband or wife;
6. That either party was, at the time of marriage, physically incapable of entering into the married state, and such incapacity continues, and appears to be incurable. (last viewed, 12/1/2014
Fraud is not defined in the Idaho Statutes and unclear in Idaho law. California law had the same language as the Idaho Statute and the California Appeals Court in Handley v. Handley, 179 Cal.App.2d 742 (Cal. App. 1960), defined fraud as:
" It is well settled that in this state a marriage may be only annulled for fraud if the fraud relates to a matter which the state deems vital to the marriage relationship. Maslow v. Maslow, 117 Cal.App.2d 237; Bruce v. Bruce, 71 Cal.App.2d 641; Bragg v. Bragg, 219 Cal. 715, 720; Marshall v. Marshall, 212 Cal. 736, 738-739, 75 A.L.R. 661; Mayer v. Mayer, 207 Cal. 685, 695; Foy v. Foy, 57 Cal.App.2d 334. The fact represented or suppressed, as the case may be, is deemed material if it relates to a matter of substance and directly affects the purpose of the party deceived in entering the contract. The deceived party may be relieved from his contract upon proof that he would not have entered into it if he had known the facts and performance of it would give him substantially less than he bargained for. Schaub v. Schaub, 71 Cal.App.2d 467, 475.
Under the above rules, our courts have held that the following were sufficient to justify an annulment of the marriage: the fact, concealed from the husband at the time of marriage, that the wife did not intend to have sexual relations with him (Rathburn v. Rathburn, 138 Cal.App.2d 568; Millar v. Millar, 175 Cal. 797, L.R.A.1918B, 415); or that one party before the marriage promised to have normal and natural intercourse which might result in the birth of children, without any intention of keeping the promise. Maslow v. Maslow, 117 Cal.App.2d 237; the fact that the wife concealed from the husband that at the time of their marriage she was pregnant by another man (Hardesty v. Hardesty, 193 Cal. 330); the known fact of sterility concealed from the other spouse at the time of marriage (Aufort v. Aufort, 9 Cal.App.2d 310; Vileta v. Vileta, 53 Cal.App.2d 794); the concealment of marital history (Williams v. Williams, 178 Cal.App.2d 522, 3 Cal.Rpter. 59); the fact that the husband had represented to the wife that he was an honest law abiding respectable and honorable man when in fact he had been convicted of grand theft, was a parole violator and a fugitive from justice and was guilty of failure to support two children of a former marriage (Douglass v. Douglass, 148 Cal.App.2d 867); the fact that the wife married the husband only for the purpose of acquiring an interest in his property and secretly intended to carry on her intimate relations with another. Schaub v. Schaub, 71 Cal.App.2d 467."
Please consult an attorney as Idaho law may differ slightly and Judges are not as familiar with annulments as they are with divorces.