blitzpackage Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 CLEARWATER, Florida (AP) -- Lawrence Roach agreed to pay alimony to the woman he divorced, not the man she became after a sex change, his lawyers argued in a Florida court Tuesday in an effort to end the payments. But the ex-wife's attorneys said the operation does not alter the agreement. The lawyers and Circuit Judge Jack St. Arnold agreed the case delves into relatively uncharted 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, has 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," said Roach's attorney, John McGuire. "When she changed to a 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. http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/03/27/sexchange.alimony.ap/index.html -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Call me insensitive, but I wouldn't be paying $1200/month to a tranny. It could just be me though...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 OK, so as long as we're considering the legal status of transsexual partners: If Dick marries Jane, then gets a sex change and becomes Dickless, are they still married? (Yet another of the many cases where I'm really glad I'm not a judge.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PiLfan Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 whatever the ruling, i'm sure South Park will have an episode on this in a matter of weeks... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rictus58 Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 If someone could afford this type of surgery, is the alimony REALLY needed by the party in question? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ntotoro Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 Since then, Julia Roach, 55, has had a sex change and legally changed her name to Julio Roberto Silverwolf. That's almost more funny than the case itself... :laugh: Interesting how groups pro-sex change want these people to be accepted as their new sex until it benefits them not to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 Interesting how groups pro-sex change want these people to be accepted as their new sex until it benefits them not to be. Um, the "pro sex-change" groups want "the new person" to be treated as male (or whatever gender they now claim). Not one of them has ever tried to claim that since "I'm a new man now" that I don't have to pay off my credit cards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ntotoro Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 That's not my point. The point is a man paying alimony to another man... ? That's not even legally possible, considering people of the same sex may not marry, even if the payee used to physically be a woman. Are men even permitted to get alimony? I don't know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riggo-toni Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 Are men eligible for alimony in FL? If not, then ntotoro's right - serious hypocrisy going on here. She opted for the package instead of the sweetheart deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redskins2redskins Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 If someone could afford this type of surgery, is the alimony REALLY needed by the party in question? The alimony may have helped pay for the surgery.:doh: I bet he'll have to keep paying.....because they were married 18 years and HE was a SHE at the time........so it shouldn't make a differance. I can only imagine how the guy feels though........his ex decides to become a man after being with him all that time,lol.:laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rictus58 Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 The alimony may have helped pay for the surgery.:doh: If someone is using alimony to pay for something like this, and I were the Judge, I'd eliminate or reduce the payments all together. I was always under the impression alimony was ordered when someone couldn't financially take care of themselves after the divorce. To help them pay for Mortgage/Rent, Utilities and the like. Not to have a sex change that costs 10's of thousands of dollars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 My understanding of alimony is that it is paid because it is deemed fair that the divorsed spouse live essentially the same lifestyle as they did when they were married. This is why people who have been married a short time don't get as much. They haven't had time to get accostumed to the lifestyle and so don't need the financial aid to ease their adjustment into singledom. My question is this... if the partner chooses a sex change, then isn't it impossible for them to live the lifestyle they were accostumed to when married. They are choosing not to live in the same lifestyle. Alimony should be voided (unless, there are kids involved, but that isn't called alimony) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blitzpackage Posted March 28, 2007 Author Share Posted March 28, 2007 My understanding of alimony is that it is paid because it is deemed fair that the divorsed spouse live essentially the same lifestyle as they did when they were married. This is why people who have been married a short time don't get as much. They haven't had time to get accostumed to the lifestyle and so don't need the financial aid to ease their adjustment into singledom.My question is this... if the partner chooses a sex change, then isn't it impossible for them to live the lifestyle they were accostumed to when married. They are choosing not to live in the same lifestyle. Alimony should be voided (unless, there are kids involved, but that isn't called alimony) Here is the court's frame of reference on sex-changes: "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." I think he's screwed, but I'd be on my way to probation just to prove a point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ntotoro Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 My understanding of alimony is that it is paid because it is deemed fair that the divorsed spouse live essentially the same lifestyle as they did when they were married. So was she planning on getting a sex change while they were married? :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
19Skins72 Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 Alimony should be illegal irregardless of the amusing details of this story. Remember ladies, you may be seperate, but you're also equal in the eyes of the law...so GO GET A XXXXING JOB! Paid for by one male taxpayer tired of the endless parade of asshats looking for a free ride. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinInsite Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 HAHA, sucks for that guy. Not only is he out 1200 a month the whole world now knows he married a tranny wanna be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 I can only imagine how the guy feels though........his ex decides to become a man after being with him all that time,lol.:laugh: At least the issue of "I think we should get back together" is closed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 I think if I'm the judge, the ruling is: Just because somebody gets a sex change doesn't mean that all pre-existing contracts suddenly go away. However, there is precident for ordering new alimony calculations because circumstances change. (Husband gets big raise. Ex wife discovers she's pregnant. Things which significantly affect the "formula" that's used to determine who gets what.) And since the alimony calculation takes the couple's gender into account, a change in gender is certainly grounds for a re-calculation of "the spread". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artmonkforHOF Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 If someone could afford this type of surgery, is the alimony REALLY needed by the party in question? you have to remeber this is in Florida, the same state that has had problems with people doing plastic surgery and dental work out motels, storage units and even the back of station wagons and vans. I dont think female to male surgery is as complicated as male to female. To y limited knowledge of the subject, I dont think they can actually make male genitalia from female parts, but they do hack up male genitalia to make something that resembles a female. I think all they do is remove breast tissue and either remove/alter reproductive organs. And even though someone can legally change their gender, to the medical community, a trans gender person is still treated as their gender of birth. I dont think the grounds of a man paying a "man" allimony really holds any water. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 Alimony should be illegal irregardless of the amusing details of this story.Remember ladies, you may be seperate, but you're also equal in the eyes of the law...so GO GET A XXXXING JOB! Paid for by one male taxpayer tired of the endless parade of asshats looking for a free ride. I agree with you A division of porperty and assets at the divorce should be sufficient. Ladies if you sacrifice for your husbands career at the sake of your own you should not be entitle to monetary compensation for your choice. EQUAL protection under the law my ass And NO I am not divorced,nor ever plan to divorce. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
19Skins72 Posted March 29, 2007 Share Posted March 29, 2007 "A division of porperty and assets at the divorce should be sufficient." I'm not divorced either, but my heart goes out to every working Joe (or Jane) that's gotten screwed by this B.S. double standard. After all, both parties sacrificed to have the life they had...but only the one that works gets screwed...typical :mad: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.