Sex change doesn’t stop alimony
That’s what a Florida judge has ruled.Â A man’s ex-wife underwent a gender switch, and changed her name from Julia to Julio.Â The ex-husband logically felt that since he hadn’t married a Julio, he was no longer responsible for alimony, but the judge didn’t agree, citing a previous Ohio case where the court upheld an alimony agreement.
What’s your take on this?Â Ethically, maybe even morally, the changed ex is still the same person, just physically altered.Â What about legally though, according to the ‘letter’ of the law.Â Â A marriage license, and decree, as a legal document, is basically a contract, is it not?Â On paper, looking at the marriage as a contract, this guy married Julia, not Julio.Â Julia legally changed her name to Julio.Â Julia’s signature is written in ink, not Julio’s.Â The guy signed a contract with Julia, not Julio, so is the contract still binding?
I guess the argument can be made that she just called herself Julia, even though she felt she was a Julio the whole time, but legally, should that factor in?Â This seems to be a true case of apples and oranges here.
If Larry [the ex-husband in the case] signs a contract to buy a boatload of apples, and gets oranges instead, is he obliged to pay for the oranges?Â You could say yes, because he took delivery.Â On the other hand, even well after delivery, he still thought the oranges were apples.Â It wasn’t till much later, in fact not till after the marital store had gone out of business, that he found out the apples were really oranges, which explained why apple sales had been so slow.Â On the flip side, is the apple salesman [now Julio] who sold Larry the oranges, still entitled to compensation, or guilty of breach of contract?
Sticky, sticky, sticky situation.
Full Story: CBS News
Cartoon from Sid in the City