This got my attention.

SeaCat

Hey, my Halo is smoking
Joined
Sep 23, 2003
Posts
15,378
Okay I'm posting this without comment. What do you have to say about this?

Man says ex-wife's sex change should end alimony obligation
By PHIL DAVIS
Associated Press Writer

CLEARWATER, Fla. — Lawrence Roach agreed to pay alimony to the woman he divorced, not the man she became after a sex change, his lawyers argued Tuesday in an effort to end the payments.

But the ex-wife's attorneys said the operation doesn't alter the agreement.

The lawyers and Circuit Judge Jack R. St. Arnold agreed the case delves into relatively unchartered legal territory. They found only a 2004 Ohio case that addressed whether or not a transsexual could still collect alimony after a sex change.

"There is not a lot out there to help us," St. Arnold said.

Roach and his wife, Julia, divorced in 2004 after 18 years of marriage. The 48-year-old utility worker agreed to pay her $1,250 a month in alimony. Since then, Julia Roach, 55, had a sex change and legally changed her name to Julio Roberto Silverwolf.

"It's illegal for a man to marry a man and it should likewise be illegal for a man to pay alimony to a man," Roach's attorney John McGuire said. "When she changed to man, I believe she terminated that alimony."

Silverwolf did not appear in court Tuesday and has declined to talk about the divorce. His lawyer, Gregory Nevins, said the language of the divorce decree is clear and firm — Roach agreed to pay alimony until his ex-wife dies or remarries.

"Those two things haven't happened," said Nevins, a senior staff attorney with the national gay rights group Lambda Legal.

St. Arnold is considering the arguments. But lawyers on both sides agreed Tuesday that Roach will likely have to keep paying alimony to Silverwolf.

The judge poked holes in several of Roach's legal arguments and noted that appeals courts have declined to legally recognize a sex change in Florida when it comes to marriage. The appellate court "is telling us you are what you are when you are born," St. Arnold said.

In the Ohio case, an appeals court ruled in September 2004 that a Montgomery County man must continue to pay $750 a month in alimony to his transsexual ex-wife because her sex change wasn't reason enough to violate the agreement.

Roach's other attorney, John Smitten, said the case falls into a legal void.

"It's probably something that has to be addressed by the Legislature," Smitten said. "There is one other case in the entire United States. It really needs to be addressed either for or against the concept of eliminating alimony for that reason."

Roach, who has since remarried, said has been unable to convince state and federal lawmakers to tackle the issue. He said he will continue to fight.

"This is definitely wrong. I have a right to move forward with my life. I wish no harm and hardship to that person," Roach said of his ex-wife. "They can be the person they want to be, to find happiness and peace within themselves. I have the right to do the same. But I can't rest because I'm paying a lot of money every month."

The legal fight is the second transsexual rights showdown in Pinellas County in less than a week. On Friday, transsexual activists from around the country packed a City Commission meeting in neighboring Largo to oppose the firing of City Manager Steve Stanton after he announced he was a transsexual.

Despite the support, commissioners voted 5-2 to fire Stanton.


___

March 27, 2007 - 9:32 p.m. EDT

Copyright 2007, The Associated Press. The information contained in the AP Online news report may not be published, broadcast or redistributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.
Sponsored Links

Cat
 
Sticky. On the one hand, I'm in agreement with the husband that his ex-wife should now be considered a man. The question is, was she a "man" when he married her? The state may not recognize marriage between man & man, but if she was a woman then they *were* married and her present sex-change doesn't change that even if she is now legally considered a man.

I'm not sure if what she is now, whether recognized by the state or not, voids the divorce settlement.
 
This is a really quirky case. I believe a TS is actually a person who was born into the wrong gender. In other words, the ex wife was a man from the start, and just recently acknowledged that. If that is the case, perhaps the marriage should be nullified, making it as if it had never happened. Of course, that would eliminate the alimony. The contract would be voided by the change in the underlying circumstances. I'm not saying that should happen, just that it might.

Otherwise, I'm afraid Roach is stuck paying alimony until he or his ex-wife dies. Even if he dies first, his estate might still have the obligation. :confused:
 
From what I have heard he has to continue paying until his ex re-marries or dies.

This begs the question though, if his ex marries does this void the payments as it is not she that is getting married but he.

It should be interesting to see what happens. (If they even bother to let us know.)

Cat
 
SeaCat said:
From what I have heard he has to continue paying until his ex re-marries or dies.

This begs the question though, if his ex marries does this void the payments as it is not she that is getting married but he.

It should be interesting to see what happens. (If they even bother to let us know.)

Cat

If his ex remarries, I am sure he would no longer get alimony. However, I doubt that he ever will. I doubt that the state of Fla will let him marry a woman, if they consider the ex to still be a woman, and he will have no interest in marrying another man. Personally, I consider a TS to be whatever gender he or she identifies with, without regard to what the birth certificate says. :)
 
SeaCat said:
From what I have heard he has to continue paying until his ex re-marries or dies.

This begs the question though, if his ex marries does this void the payments as it is not she that is getting married but he.

It should be interesting to see what happens. (If they even bother to let us know.)

Cat

I read an article on this the other day and it sounded like Florida doesn't recognize a transgendered person as actually being the new sex so far as marriage is concerned. So it might be illegal for the ex- to marry anyone except another man. And it might be illegal for the ex- to marry a man either.

I think the husband shouldn't have to pay alimony any longer. The ex can no longer be a wife, so how can the ex be an ex-wife?

I'm just glad the article doesn't mention any children. Divorce is bad enough on kids without national press coverage.
 
only_more_so said:
I read an article on this the other day and it sounded like Florida doesn't recognize a transgendered person as actually being the new sex so far as marriage is concerned. So it might be illegal for the ex- to marry anyone except another man. And it might be illegal for the ex- to marry a man either.

I think the husband shouldn't have to pay alimony any longer. The ex can no longer be a wife, so how can the ex be an ex-wife?

I'm just glad the article doesn't mention any children. Divorce is bad enough on kids without national press coverage.

I agree with you, morally and in principle but, if the state considers the ex to still be a woman, it won't do anything to end the contract. He could legally remarry another man, but that is extremely unlikely. The best remedy would be for the ex to marry an M to F TS.

By the way, I'm really not trying yo be flip. Transgendered people have enough difficulties without people mocking them.
 
Boxlicker101 said:
I agree with you, morally and in principle but, if the state considers the ex to still be a woman, it won't do anything to end the contract. He could legally remarry another man, but that is extremely unlikely.
Strangely enough, it's not "extremely" unlikely. I had a trangendered friend who transgendered from female to...gay male. Switching genders does not necessarily mean that the transgendered person has also switched sexual orientation (i.e. whatever sex they're sexually attracted to).

Was the ex-wife (now a man) a heterosexual man in a woman's body, or a homosexual man in a woman's body?

But the ONLY question here is what Flordia *legally* considers the ex. If Flordia considers the ex a woman, before and after pre-op, then that's the end of the argument. The ex-husband is stuck.

The situation only changes if Flordia *legally* considers the ex male either pre or post op. Then the ex-husband *might* have an argument.
 
Back
Top