Man agreed to pay alimony to his ex -- but not to the man she became. Now what?

A fairly new trail is being blazed in legal circles, thanks to the miracle of modern medicine. This guy married a woman, whom he divorced. Then she became a he, and now he's saying he shouldn't have to keep paying her -- er, him -- alimony.

What do you think?

http://newsgrinder.blogspot.com/2007/03/man-agreed-to-pay-alimony-to-his-ex-but.html

They were legally married, legally divorced, and he's legally on the hook for alimony no matter what she's got in her knickers these days.

Next case!

can you legally be divorced from somebody of the same sex?

What happened afterward does not change his contractual obligations.

For instance, depending on whether one lives, dies, or remarries, the obligations are different.

then he's on the hook until the ex remarries or dies. Based on his alimony payment, one can safely assume he had legal counsel at the time the agreement was made, so he doesn't have any good reason to say now that he got screwed.

with another man? Would he have to keep paying if s/he married a woman?

(I'm not taking a position; I'm just fascinated by the implications.)

Legally, the answer is probably yes. However, this is Ohio, and Ohio family courts have a habit of going well outside the law to enforce whatever moral/religious/conformist axe the judge wants to grind, so they could very well find a way to get the ex off the hook. The fact that Ohio won't recognize same sex partnerships even when married elsewhere would mean that, assuming the trans ex is still legally considered female (I have no idea what Ohio law precedent on transgendered people is,) any female partner is nothing more than a roomie in the eyes of the law. If that is the case, the ex would still be on the hook, even if they threw the biggest, most outlandish commitment ceremony/wedding since Chuck and Di.

but I have no idea why. I have absolutely no basis for that assumption.

But what if the sex change occurred during the marriage? Would the marriage become invalid in states which do recognize sex changes? And if so, would all prenuptial alimony agreements similarly be invalid?

As for states which do not recognize sex changes, this might be an effective loophole for legalizing same sex marriages.

Clearwater. I don't know how much that changes things though.

termination of alimony. If his ex get a partner, those may kick in.

I agree.

As a man, the former wife will have greater earnings power than as a woman because of institutionalized gender discrimination in salary. He needs less money now than she did then.

You sure have a lot more faith in employers than reality supports.

The ex-husband may end up paying more. That's a risk that payers of alimony ALWAYS take on when they reopen an old case.

The settlement does not become null and void because of a medical procedure, even if that procedure was elective. Too often, society still views a divorce agreement as a handout to the spouse who is on the financial recieving end (usually a woman). That's just not the case.

I hope the former wife wins this one!

A deal's a deal.

NT!

I don't know about family law in any other state but California, but I do know that spousal support (nice term supposedly for alimony) is based on need and ability to pay and, if this is a permanent and not temporary order, then lifestyle of the parties during marriage is taken into consideration as well as a few other things really not worth mentioning.

IMO, irrelevant that she is now a he ~~ none of the above factors changes because of this.

The woman had a medical procedure, which made her a man. BUT ... that doesn't change the fact that the woman (who is now a man) was married to a man who agreed to pay alimony until his ex-wife either died or remarried. A sex change qualifies as neither.

Alimony should only be paid for a set period of time (long enough for the person to get job training or complete an education in order to become self supporting, in lieu of a property settlement or the property settlement should be reduced by the amount of alimony.

where one person stays at home to take care of the couples mutual offspring and household chores while the other person pursues a career, the person who stays at home is at a terrible financial disadvantage should they divorce.

If the person staying home had been working all those years they would have a career path, raises, a retirement plan and so forth. It's not simply a matter of being supported until they get job training as if they were welfare recipients or something.

The way my parents divorce settlement was calculated was based on what it would have cost to have full time child care for 18 years, plus house cleaning and a personal assistant for 25 years. That seems one fair way to figure it.

settlements and should not be called alimony.

Alimony is an out dated concept dating from the days when marriage was supposed to be forever, women were actively discouraged from holding jobs, divorce was still relatively rare, and one paycheck was enough to support a whole family. The idea was that a husband owed the woman he married spousal support for the rest of her life whether or not they remained married.

I once read about a woman who put her husband through either medical or law school at the expense of her own career. They divorced years later when he was reaping in considerable benefits from that education which she paid for.

She argued successfully that she invested in his career and therefore was entitled to a portion of his earnings as a return on her investment. I don't call that alimony. It is a dividend for the years she worked to support him and pay for his education.

If a married couple have children and the woman interrupts her career in order to raise the children, then that should be considered in a divorce settlement. Those years that her career was interrupted and the over all financial loss caused by the interruption should be figured into the divorce settlement.

Any payments made under those circumstances are not alimony; they are time payments in leiu of a lump sum settlement.

at the very least, it changes the perspective by calling it a settlement.

Just send ME the checks! :evilgrin:

It is a bullshit hangover from a bygone era. I don't see how this guy's former spouse acquiring a penis alters the situation.

when she quit being his ex wife, he/she gave up claims to any wife related things IMO.

the contract has been voided by his/her actions.

Msongs
www.msongs.com

She is still his ex-wife, unless they got married again. Alimony is dependent on your sexuality?

that includes change of legal name, recognition of the new gender, etc... to me, it's a new person. I say this based on the documentaries I've seen on people who have gone through sex change. This person's "ex-wife" is now a man, a man this person didn't marry with.

"What the MARRIAGE was based on is totally irrelevant. This is
not about a marriage that was over long ago. This is about
a court order that is in effect NOW. A court order that
DOES NOT contain the clause, "as long as she remains legally female".

The alimony is based on the fact that this person is his ex-wife.
And unless the surgeons who operated on her installed some
sort of time machine, they did nothing to change that.

"Ex-wife" = "person who used to be his wife". Nothing
will EVER change the fact that this person used to be his wife.
Nothing.

Would you say that a divorced father who has a sex change is somehow
entitled to stop paying his child support? Same thing, y'know.
"

Edited to add, fingerprints are still the same. IMO, the same person, same prior responsibilities, even though their gender is different. Alimony is usually given to make up for income disparity and/or the 1 partner doing something like working while the other goes to school to increase job possibilities/income. Do you think that by changing to male this person now does not fit into these categories, or is it just because this person had a sex change and is "a different person"?

and assets?

Can you call VISA and say "I don't have to pay you any more - I'm a different person now"?

They were married, and divorced, legally. Current circumstances not mentioned in the alimony agreement are not a factor.

:silly:

landlord's gender.

It appears, from the limited information provided in this thread at least, that the marriage in question was dependent upon the gender of the two parties.

What the MARRIAGE was based on is totally irrelevant. This is
not about a marriage that was over long ago. This is about
a court order that is in effect NOW. A court order that
DOES NOT contain the clause, "as long as she remains legally female".

The alimony is based on the fact that this person is his ex-wife.
And unless the surgeons who operated on her installed some
sort of time machine, they did nothing to change that.

"Ex-wife" = "person who used to be his wife". Nothing
will EVER change the fact that this person used to be his wife.
Nothing.

Would you say that a divorced father who has a sex change is somehow
entitled to stop paying his child support? Same thing, y'know.

The court's decision about alimony is based upon the terms of the marriage, thus those terms are very relevant. I have to disagree with your assertion that the terms of the marriage are irrelevant to the terms of the dissolution of the marriage. And I am assuming that the marriage was based upon the parties being opposite genders in this case, since that seems to be the basis of this thread and since it appears that there was no expectation to the contrary in this case, and since in the (in my view) unenlightened state in which they were married, they could not have married as a same sex couple in any event. Is there really an issue here about the intent of the parties insofar as it relates to the gender of the person they were marrying at the time? I don't see that in this thread, but please correct me if I'm wrong.

There is no written contract with regards to the marriage as far as I can tell from the OP, so it is not about interpreting the terms of a contract, as you suggest. Rather, it is about a court trying to interpret to the best of its ability the intent of the parties and the obigations of the parties.

You seem to be introducing a straw man here by raising the issue of a parent having a sex change and how that impacts upon a spouse being required to pay child support. I did not see anything in the OP about children or child support being an issue, but supporting one's children is a seperate issue from supporting one's previous spouse, as I'm sure you know.

You said:

"Would you say that a divorced father who has a sex change is somehow entitled to stop his child support? Same thing, y'know."

No, it is not the same thing at all. And no, I would not say that having a sex change absolves anyone of their obligations to their children. But that is not the issue here.

that makes no sense what so ever. if the person changed gender during marriage it would be fair to argue that the 'terms of marriage' were broken, but we're talking about divorce here - two people who don't want to have anything to do with each other. So why would gender have an iota of importance except as a lame attempt to get out of an agreement?

First, where is your evidence that this particular couple divorced because "they don't want to have anything to do with each other"? Second, was the parting of the ways a result of the fact that one of the parties chose to change genders? Third, as a bisexual person myself, I can certainly understand why a heterosexual partner would balk at being held financially responsible for my support if my partner was not aware of my bisexuality at the time of our union or throughout our relationship, and I wouldn't hold it against my partner at all if said partner felt that way. (Hell, even I didn't know of my bisexual nature at the time we first got together, so how could I hold it against my partner later?)

Note that this is premised on the straight partner not having knowledge of my bisexuality - I would opine differently if the partner knew all along, but that does not seem to be the case in the subject of this thread.

All of this is quite separate and apart from the issues of child support, though. I agree that the partner should not in any way be absolved of the partner's obligations to the children, but I disagree that the partner should not be able to argue that his obligations to his spouse have changed when the spouse's gender is changed in circumstances where he had no prior knowledge of it.

that may take into account some all or none of the terms of the marriage.

This is all specific to the deal struck by this former couple. If it doesn't refer to gender change, I hardly see how it can matter.

Edit - sorry, I had some kind of glitch and got an error message that indicated that my post did not appear so I had to re-do it. Now, it appears that it did post so this may be a duplicate.

Quote: And no, I would not say that having a sex change
absolves anyone of their obligations to their children.

Then WHY exactly would it absolve them of any other legal OBLIGATION
then? Unless you believe that transgendered folks are somehow
less than human, and CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS don't really apply to them,
your post doesn't actually make any logical sense.

Your disagreement is too silly to waste any more time thinking about.

But, FYI: you might want to learn what a "straw man arguement" is
before you embarrass yourself with further misuse of the term.
That was a "rhetorical question". Different.

obligations to one's children.

I think this is self evident.

The only strawmen being erected here are of your doing, not mine.

It seems less and less likely that these are truly "misunderstandings"
on your part. Therefore, I shall bid you "good day".

Good day.

The marriage has ended.

There's nothing about alimony that is gender specific.

NT!

just as if you were to change your name, you're still the same person with the same fingerprints same dna, etc etc

*Rolls Eyes*

Where in the contract is that stipulated?

Unless, of course, you can provide evidence that your assertion that the deal hinged on Julio's gender is true.

"bloodsucking bitch"?
C'mon, ya know he probably does...

Men and women are equal. Don't pull that shit about would a man ask for alimony.



Men and women are equal! Quit pretending they aren't!

Personally, I think the court will say that hubby's off the hook, but that's just a guess. I can't say that I would disagree with that, though, if that's the ultimate decision.

The disparity of pay between men and women? If so, what affect do you think the sex change will have on their earning ability? If the ex-wife receives the pay boost as a man, maybe that cancels out the point of alimony? Of course, maybe the ex-wife will struggle in earnings considering prejudice. It's a head-scratcher.

...I'd love to know what planet you live on.

If you'd care to reread what I posted, you'll see that I did, in fact, bring up prejudice against transgendered people. But by all means don't let that stop you from making an arse out of yourself.

That concept seems a tad dated.

A fair division of the assets upon divorce...sure. Absolutely.

But a concept that someone must be supported for life by a former partner?

Why?

If you consider it two people coming together for a possibly limited time and that's all, then long term alimony doesn't make much sense.

I personally tend to think of it more as an incorporation or partnership. In said partnership there may be a range of divisions of labor - one party may work outside the home to earn the $, the other may work in the home to manage the resources. But on divorce, one partner's labor is now an asset and the other's is a liability.

There's no simple way to split THAT sort of asset on divorce.

need alimony in the first place?

when the wife obviously isn't hurting for finances.

It has to do with the divorce agreement abnd its terms.

If - for example - a wife spent 20 years managing the home while the husband worked and this was their shared decision and division of labor, I think it's reasonable that his future earnings are partially hers due to the investment she made in them. If they made that sort of division of labor it created an asset in his name (his earning potential) that can't be split in half the way house valie could be in a divorce.

Wait - what?

Did you really say that?

How odd. So, I shouldn't support my kid, so I can make sure he, you know, eats and has health care and clothes?

What kind of nonsense are you talking?

"Hi VISA - I'm a different person now so I don't owe you jack shit."

Of course you'd have to forego your assets as well.

VILE.

I'm fat, does that make me vile?

then he, or is it she, can afford to support his or her self.

It is a negotiated settlement between two parties.

the person recieving alimony could certainly be wealthy in their own right, but if they substantially contributed to the other spouse's ability to earn income they have a shared interest in that future income. Hence, alimony.


The other way to do it is to dissolve all assets and split them up at the time of divorce but this is not always practical or financially wise, so payment over a period of years or a lifetime is set up instead.

Here's an example - someone I used to work with. She worked two jobs right out of high school so that he wouldn't have to work and would be able to go to college - and then to grad school. They put off having a kid while she worked and he went to school. Then they had a kid, he had his doctorate, and he divorced her for someone else. He would not have have been able to get through school or even pay for it without her NOT going to school and working two jobs to pay for everything. She did it as an investment in THEIR COMBINED future. He can leave her if he wants but she made an investment in him as part of an agreement they had - that she would work to put him through school so he'd get a good job and be able to make things financially easy for both of them. If he wants to leave her he still has to follow through with that agreement.

And if she'd decided to have any kind of elective surgery, it wouldn't change their past or what responsibilities he had.

NT!

Why on earth would it make a difference that this person had any kind of elective surgery at all? How does that change the financial situation that made alimony applicable in the first place?

A change of gender does indeed change a person's financial prospects.

finding a job.

Anyway, that's beside the point. It isn't about their financial prospects, it's about the financial choices they made during their marriage. I wrote a reply to the post above this one with an example of that. The woman worked two jobs to put her husband through college, and then through grad school. He got his doctorate and married someone else. She worked two jobs for years and years because they together decided she would do that for their combined future, which would be easier after he had a doctorate and could make a very good salary. Those facts wouldn't change if she had sex reassignment surgery, or had any other kind of surgery.

...It isn't about their financial prospects, it's about the financial choices they made during their marriage.

Financial prospects can be considered in alimony negotiations. See my reply in another thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2784274&mesg_id=2785054

Transgendered people face huge amounts of bigotry. You're assuming that he looks and sounds completely masculine now, that he has a new job where no one knows him or knew him or knew of him, and that he is able to have all his references keep it a secret and that it will be kept a secret when people call his former places of work to ask about his employment history. And that his new job won't ask for a college transcript or anything else that would have his former name listed.

If anything, he would probably need *more* money because of increased discrimination.

I'm simply saying that statements made in this thread and at least one other, indicating that earnings power is not a factor in alimony determination, and that alimony has nothing to do with the recipient's financial needs, are incorrect.

The ex-husband in this case may be acting reasonably if he claims that the gender change of his former spouse changes the financial calculus that resulted in the present alimony payment. A court can determine if his claim is valid.

If anything, he would probably need *more* money because of increased discrimination.

Perhaps so, and frankly by bringing the issue into court the former husband is taking a risk that he'll end up paying more.

I'm not even friends with a single transgendered person, and *I* get that fact.