Sex change = no more alimony? I think not

[Jaymes]

http://365gay.com/Newscon07/03/032807alimony.htm

(Clearwater, Florida) A woman's sex change operation does not free her ex-husband from his alimony obligation, a judge said Wednesday.

Attorneys for Lawrence Roach, 48, had argued his 55-year-old ex-wife's decision to switch genders and change her name from Julia to Julio Roberto Silverwolf voided their 2004 divorce agreement.

"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," said John McGuire, one of Roach's attorneys.

Circuit Judge Jack R. St. Arnold, however, ruled that in the eyes of the law, nothing changed significantly enough to free Roach from his $1,250-a-month obligation.

Talk about grasping at straws. :sarcastic

Do you agree with this decision? Why or why not?

 

[Nanda]

People are still getting paid alimony these days? :sarcastic Is there a reason why Julio can't get a job? Well, I guess apart from finding alimony a remnant of a more sexist America that should probably be done away with, I don't see this as a problem. If he agreed to pay alimony until his ex-wife remarries or dies, then pay he shall. They're still the same person, afterall.

 

[Bishka]

Do you agree with this decision? Why or why not?

Personally, I don't feel that I have enough facts or anything to make a final desicion. I'm not sure where I woudl lean, because I do not know the circumstances of the family or what is going on.

 

[Jaymes]

People are still getting paid alimony these days? :sarcastic Is there a reason why Julio can't get a job?

Is there anything here to indicate he doesn't have one? :sarcastic

 

[Nanda]

Is there anything here to indicate he doesn't have one? :sarcastic

I get your point, but then what the heck does he need alimony for?

 

[Ðanisty]

I think most times alimony is paid out when you've done something wrong like cheating, isn't it? If Mr. Roach has to pay alimony, there's probably a good reason for it because it was agreed upon in the divorce. The fact that his ex-wife is now Julio instead of Julia has absolutely no bearing on decisions already made in my opinion.

 

[Nanda]

Well, obviously they both agreed to it initially, so it's between them, but it seems awfully ridiculous to me in this day and age. ( And I don't think money is a fitting consolation prize for a marital infidelity.)

 

[kateyes]

If the husband agreed to pay the alimony--the change of gender shouldn't matter. The conditions under which he agreed to pay have not changed--just the gender of his former wife.

Having said that--I think alimony is an archaic institution-(I said alimony not child support)--I have never understood why a former spouse (female or male) should have to continue to support thier ex. Somehow it makes the whole concept of marriage into some less. (To me it implies that marriage is about finances and not a partnership entered into by 2 people who love each other and want to be together).

 

[Nanda]

Having said that--I think alimony is an archaic institution-(I said alimony not child support)--I have never understood why a former spouse (female or male) should have to support continue to support thier ex. Somehow it makes the whole concept of marriage into some less. (To me it implies that marriage is about finances and not a partnership entered into by 2 people who love each other and want to be together).

Yes! Exactly! *frubals!*

 

[dawny0826]

http://365gay.com/Newscon07/03/032807alimony.htm

(Clearwater, Florida) A woman's sex change operation does not free her ex-husband from his alimony obligation, a judge said Wednesday.

Attorneys for Lawrence Roach, 48, had argued his 55-year-old ex-wife's decision to switch genders and change her name from Julia to Julio Roberto Silverwolf voided their 2004 divorce agreement.

"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," said John McGuire, one of Roach's attorneys.

Circuit Judge Jack R. St. Arnold, however, ruled that in the eyes of the law, nothing changed significantly enough to free Roach from his $1,250-a-month obligation.

Talk about grasping at straws. :sarcastic

Do you agree with this decision? Why or why not?

I'd need to know a little more about the situation before I could decide whether or not I agreed.

 

[Jaymes]

What more do you need to know other than this guy wanted to get out of paying alimony because his ex-spouse went through a gender change?

 

[Booko]

I think most times alimony is paid out when you've done something wrong like cheating, isn't it?

Nope. Here in the wondrous state of Georgia, depending on where you file suit, the woman with a high paying job will get alimony from her mediocre-paid husband, even though no cheating was alleged and SHE is the one who decided to break off the marriage.

If Mr. Roach has to pay alimony, there's probably a good reason for it because it was agreed upon in the divorce. The fact that his ex-wife is now Julio instead of Julia has absolutely no bearing on decisions already made in my opinion.

I know so little about the facts of this case, but if the alimony was adjudicated prior to any hint of Mr. Roach's ex wanting a sex change, then the question of the sex change should be moot and Mr. Roach needs to pay up.

If the spouse getting a sex-change operation was a cause of the divorce, then there may be an argument. People do have certain expectations going into a marriage, and having one's spouse change sexes mid-stream would violate typical expectations.

 

[Booko]

What more do you need to know other than this guy wanted to get out of paying alimony because his ex-spouse went through a gender change?

Considering the way people regularly try to sleaze out of their legal obligations, I'm more likely to suspect he's just trying to sleaze out of paying the alimony than there's any real beef.

But it's like the other bizzaro case I heard of this morning, where the husband shoots the man who's with his wife, and SHE is the one charged with manslaughter. It sounds really off -- until you here the facts behind the case.

 

[dawny0826]

What more do you need to know other than this guy wanted to get out of paying alimony because his ex-spouse went through a gender change?

My question is more along the lines of why is he paying alimony in the first place.

The gender change, in my opinion should be a non issue. I'm simply curious of the circumstances behind the alimony. If my husband and I separated, I personally wouldn't want his money any more.

Child support...different issue.

I don't always understand the point of alimony. That's just me. (Shrugs...)

 

[lizskid]

I see it as an issue with the divorce settlement, regardless of gender. If the wife was paying support to the ex husband, I would expect that to continue if he changed gender....no brainer to me, I guess, and the court must have agreed that the gender change was not pertinent to the settlement.

 

[Booko]

I don't always understand the point of alimony. That's just me. (Shrugs...)

If I gave up my lucrative career in order to stay home and care for the house, then there would be a point to alimony.

Hm...I think I did that. And now after as many years as I've been out of the business I was in, I would return as "entry-level" -- at best.

I'm kinda confused about why I would expect alimony if I'm the one who left, though, and there was no issue of abuse of any kind. If that were the case, I'd expect nothing.

 

[Ciscokid]

Alimony is absurd and should be abolished.

 

[michel]

I think most times alimony is paid out when you've done something wrong like cheating, isn't it? If Mr. Roach has to pay alimony, there's probably a good reason for it because it was agreed upon in the divorce. The fact that his ex-wife is now Julio instead of Julia has absolutely no bearing on decisions already made in my opinion.

I think (well at least this is the case in the U.K) that alimony (we call maintenance) is paid to the injured party, and represents (especially in the case of a woman) a recompense for everything that she has "put into" the familly.

If she has not worked for ten years (because of looking after children for example), then she has a right to having contributed ten year's "salary" to the mariage - and should be maintained to the level at which her husband maintained her when they were married.

If I was to divorce my wife today, I wouldn't (I couldn't afford to)

The house is in joint names, as is our money. She would have a right to half the home which means that one of us would have to buy the other's half - or sell, and both buy smaller.

Mine was the only income for 15 years, but my wife "earned" half of that while staying at home, looking after our children..etc.


As far as the case in the OP is concerned, a sex change does nothing to invalidate what that partner put into the marriage, therefore (as I see it), the alimony shouldn't be affected because of a sex change.

 

[Ciscokid]

If you have the money to have a fake penis surgically attached to your body then you don't need alimony.

 

[Mathematician]

Alimony is ridiculous, but as long as the law stands, he should be paying up. This sounds like an excuse to get out of a binding legal contract.