Replies

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.

I saw a case on Court TV where the children were taken away from the biological mother and given to a woman who had a sex change operation and declared herself a man. They children were upset - that had to leave with that freaky looking person. Another sick decision made by Florida courts - they must be among the worst in the country.

"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.