Ex-wife becomes a man; ex-husband seeks end to alimony

CNN ^ | March 27, 2007 | cnn

[Cowboy Bob]

Guys usually get screwed in a divorce. It looks like Julia had to get a sex change to learn that fact!

[TKDietz]

"If Florida - where crazy things keep happening - recognizes her as being a man, then obviously there should be no alimony and the marriage declared a fraud."

Why? She was a she during the eighteen years of marriage and when the alimony was ordered in the divorce, which was apparently all part of an agreed Decree that the husband signed off on, or at least there was a property settlement agreement between the parties. A name change does not change rights or obligations of either party to the contract, or those created pursuant to the court's decree. I don't think this guy has a leg to stand on in court. His attorney knows this too I bet and that's why he correctly stated that, "It's probably something that has to be addressed by the Legislature..." That is who would have to address this. The court should not be making up new laws. A court though might very well strike down a law that relieves a party of a contractual obligation, denying the other party the benefit of the bargain. There are constitutional protections against that. At a minimum I would think that any new law by the legislature making sex change operations a deal killer in alimony arrangements could only apply to future cases and not to those where the property settlement agreements where approved prior to the new law.

Alimony these days in most states is rarely awarded unless it's something the parties agree too. In most cases, the party agreeing to pay alimony is getting something in return. He may for instance get to keep valuable parcel of real property that would have otherwise been sold with the proceeds being divided equally between the two parties. It sounds to me like this guy is just looking for an excuse to shirk his contractual obligations. I don't think he has a prayer of winning, and I don't think he should win.

He says: "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."

If I were the judge in this case I would tell him that if he didn't think he could be happy and get on with his life paying all that alimony he should have never agreed to do it in the first place.

[steve-b]

Oh, puh-leeze. A name change or sex change doesn't wipe out debts.

Nice try, buddy. Now pay up.

[TKDietz]

"He agreed to pay her alimony. She is no longer a "her", and the woman he agreed to pay alimony no longer exists as a legal, female, entity."

I'm not some gay rights activist, not by a long shot. I'm not pro sex change operations or anything like that either. Homosexuality is pretty creepy to me, as are sex change operations. But, this guy agreed to pay another person alimony, knowing full well he might be paying that amount the rest of his life. In agreeing to do this, I bet he was getting something in return. Even if not, tough luck for him. He has obligated himself to pay and he should not be allowed to shirk his obligation. Think he would have gotten out of it if instead of getting a sex change operation she had his brother's child? Nope. Wouldn't he have gotten out of it if she had gotten convicted of a felony? Nope. He'll get out of it if she (he, whatever) remarries or dies. Otherwise he has to hold up his end of the bargain.

[Smokin' Joe]

This is alimony, not child support.

It is one thing for him to support "her", but to pay some 'guy' alimony?

Puhleeze. No way.

[TKDietz]

Way. If he didn't want to pay all this money for the rest of his life he should have never agreed to do it in the first place. And I bet he got something in return for this when he agreed to it in the beginning. Why else would a utility worker have to pay fifteen grand a year in alimony? I doubt very seriously a court would have ordered that if it was contested. He has an obligation to his ex spouse. That she has gotten this operation is irrelevant. He needs to pay up.

[FixitGuy]

When a guy gets divorced he usually ends up with at least three enemies,

His ex-wife, her attorney, and his own attorney.

Now he has an ex-husband instead of an ex-wife.

Weird!

[Dante3]

I agree with you IF the state of Florida recognizes her now as a "him." He agreed to pay alimony to an ex-wife. But she is no longer an ex-wife IF she is recognized as a male. I never said it was because of a name change but only if she is no longer an ex-wife.

[Dante3]

I am NOT advocating that there is such a thing as sex change. All you have here is a mutilated female.

However, IF the state of Florida declares that she is now a "he," then he no longer has an ex-wife. And if she argues that all along she has been a "male trapped in a female body," then the marriage was a sham and should be annulled since Florida does not have same sex marriage.

I never argued that he should not pay because she changed her name. It is just that he no longer has an ex-wife and it is illegal for a man to have an ex-husband.

[little jeremiah]

Later pingout.

[TKDietz]

Is it illegal to have a man as an ex wife or just illegal for one man to marry another man? As far as annulments go, I don't think you can annul a marriage that has already been dissolved by divorce. Even if you could, while the laws on annulments vary from state to state generally the longer the parties have been married the harder it is to get an annulment. To get one in my state at least the moving party would have to prove that he or she was incapable of consenting to the marriage due to want of age or understanding, or incapable of entering into the marriage due to physical causes, or that consent for the marriage was obtained by force or fraud. I assume both of these people were of legal consenting age when they were married and neither suffered from any condition that would make them incapable of understanding that they were getting married. Maybe he could argue that she defrauded him, not admitting her lesbian tendencies or that she may have felt like a man trapped in a woman's body, but that would be pretty hard to do after an eighteen year marriage. The burden of proof in these things in my state at least is as high as the burden in setting aside a deed or other written contract on fraud grounds. It's not easy to do at all, and there are all sorts of equitable arguments (laches, estoppel, etc.) likely to act as a bar to him claiming fraud after eighteen years of marriage, if there was any fraud to begin with. We don't know what their intentions were or what was in their heads all those years ago when these two got married. They stuck it out eighteen years. If he wanted to get an annulment, he should have done it a long, long time ago, instead of "sitting on his hands" through eighteen years of marriage and then waiting several more years after the divorce.

This guy isn't asking for an annulment. He's trying to weasel out of his obligation to pay alimony. I understand what you are saying about a man having to pay alimony to another man, but the fact is that his wife was not a man when he agreed to pay the alimony and that agreement was accepted by the court and made part of the Decree. The fact that she later had a sex change operation does not relieve him of his obligation to pay. I'd be willing to bet money that the court finds that he is still obligated to pay, and that if he appeals that ruling he will lose. And, while I understand how it might feel awkward for him to write alimony checks to what is now I guess another man, this other "man" is his ex wife, and his obligation to her/him/it still remains until her/him/it gets remarried or dies. He shouldn't be able to get out of it because he doesn't like the fact the his ex got a sex change operation. As far as I'm concerned, he's just looking for an excuse not to pay. He said he hopes his wife finds happiness and peace, but that he can't do that because he's "paying a lot of money every month." That's really what this is all about. He just wants to get out from under his obligation to pay alimony. In my opinion, if he didn't want to pay so much alimony he should have never agreed to it in the first place.

[TKDietz]

The second "her/him/it" in the last paragraph should have read "she/he/it."

"She/he/it," say that three times.

[Kahonek]

"he no longer has an ex-wife"

Technically, he does. This person was once his wife. The person is no longer his wife. That makes the person his ex-wife. Even if the person is now an ex-woman.

[Dante3]

That is why I said that IF Florida recognizes her as a "he" then he does NOT have an ex-wife because only a woman can be an ex-wife. A man cannot be an ex-wife. Note I am saying IF Florida recognizes that she is a "he." If Florida does not and considers her just a mutilated woman, then he does have an ex-wife.

I personally do not consider her a "he" no matter how much plastic surgery she gets.

One can write all kinds of long paragraphs and make all kinds of irrelevant arguments, but no way can a man be an "ex-wife."

[newzjunkey]

I'd missed this story before. I think Florida does not recognize transgender circumstances. There's no "new" birth certificate, for example. This was once true, but I don't know if it is still so. It's Florida. Anything is possible.

I think it comes down to the specific language of the decree. LIKELY, he should still be paying up. The real lesson here is men (and women) should have learned to include this in the terms of when payment stops.

If we accept the "advocate" view, the "wife" was never female and thus since Florida has no same-sex marriage there was never a real marriage, only a fraud perpetrated. I wish this guy well, that being the always biological guy, not the plant-on but I suspect the courts will just say, "You're screwed."

[Kahonek]

"no way can a man be an 'ex-wife.'"

The only way that a man can be an ex-wife is if he once was a wife. Hmmm...

[grey_whiskers]

This is a good try on the part of the ex-hubby, but I don't think it will hold water.

The question is, given that the sex change was to a man, will it stand up in court? /rim shot>

Cheers!

[Dante3]

You can never tell about Florida courts. Judges there have gotten away with flagrant disregard of the law. You make a good point in suggesting that a "sex change" be included in the divorced settlement. But who would have expected something this weird happening?

[TKDietz]

Do you really think that it would be a flagrant disregard for the law for the judge to rule against this man seeking end his alimony payments? I realize your comments in another post about long paragraphs and irrelevant arguments were directed at me, but you have no argument. You just don't think it's right that this guy has to pay but are incapable of providing any real legal argument a court could use to make a ruling consistent with your opinion. There is no basis whatsoever in the law for ending this man's alimony payments. There are plenty of solid legal arguments for not ending the payments, but none for ending them. As steve-b so succinctly put it, "A name change or sex change doesn't wipe out debts. Nice try, buddy. Now pay up."

[Dante3]

How come you are so obsessed with this case as if personally involved? Calm down. You missed my argument. I said IF Florida accepts that she is a "he." I have never argued that she has become a "he." As long as she remains a she, even a mutilated she, then he does have to pay alimony.