Bali is NOT going to like this story!

[Ohiogal]

What is the name of your state? Ohio

[url]http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/03/27/sexchange.alimony.ap/index.html[/url]

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.

St. Arnold is considering the arguments. But lawyers on both sides agreed Tuesday that Roach will probably have to keep paying alimony to Silverwolf.

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.

In the Ohio case, an appeals court ruled in September 2004 that a Montgomery County man must continue to pay $750 a month in alimony to his transsexual ex-wife because her sex change was not reason enough to violate the agreement.

Roach's other attorney, John Smitten, said the case falls into a legal void.

"It's probably something that has to be addressed by the Legislature," Smitten said. "There is one other case in the entire United States. It really needs to be addressed either for or against the concept of eliminating alimony for that reason."

Roach, who has since remarried, said has been unable to convince state and federal lawmakers to tackle the issue. He said he will continue to fight.

"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."

The legal fight is the second transsexual rights showdown in Pinellas County in less than a week. On Friday, transsexual activists from around the United States packed a City Commission meeting in neighboring Largo to oppose the firing of City Manager Steve Stanton after he announced he was seeking a sex-change operation.

Despite the support, commissioners voted 5-2 to fire Stanton

[Bali Hai]

Originally Posted by Ohiogal

What is the name of your state? Ohio

[url]http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/03/27/sexchange.alimony.ap/index.html[/url]

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.

St. Arnold is considering the arguments. But lawyers on both sides agreed Tuesday that Roach will probably have to keep paying alimony to Silverwolf.

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.

In the Ohio case, an appeals court ruled in September 2004 that a Montgomery County man must continue to pay $750 a month in alimony to his transsexual ex-wife because her sex change was not reason enough to violate the agreement.

Roach's other attorney, John Smitten, said the case falls into a legal void.

"It's probably something that has to be addressed by the Legislature," Smitten said. "There is one other case in the entire United States. It really needs to be addressed either for or against the concept of eliminating alimony for that reason."

The concept of eliminating alimony altogether needs to be addressed.

Roach, who has since remarried, said has been unable to convince state and federal lawmakers to tackle the issue. He said he will continue to fight.

"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."

Roach made his own problems by agreeing to pay alimony in the first place.

The legal fight is the second transsexual rights showdown in Pinellas County in less than a week. On Friday, transsexual activists from around the United States packed a City Commission meeting in neighboring Largo to oppose the firing of City Manager Steve Stanton after he announced he was seeking a sex-change operation.

Despite the support, commissioners voted 5-2 to fire Stanton

Perfect example of why you NEVER should AGREE to pay alimony.

I hope the ex-wife remarries after the sex change and gets nailed with alimony after the divorce.

[Ohiogal]

LOL. OH boy. I read this story and had to post it here because i wanted your input. Yes he did agree to alimony and he forgot to include the sex change provision.
Who would have thought that would have been necessary? I am going to have to inform my client of that.

[fairisfair]

Poor Bali, why must you torture him so??? LOL

[moburkes]

Amazing. Absolutely amazing.

[moburkes]

A friend just stated that if she can afford to become a he, then s/he doesn't need alimony since the purpose is to make sure that the ex spouse is able to maintain a similar lifestyle.

[Bali Hai]

Originally Posted by moburkes

A friend just stated that if she can afford to become a he, then s/he doesn't need alimony since the purpose is to make sure that the ex spouse is able to maintain a similar lifestyle.

I agree, there is a subsantial change in circumstances. s/he will need condoms, jock straps, a whole new wardrobe and a stand up urnal. That could very well compel a judge to order more alimony.

[fairisfair]

Originally Posted by moburkes

A friend just stated that if she can afford to become a he, then s/he doesn't need alimony since the purpose is to make sure that the ex spouse is able to maintain a similar lifestyle.

Well he (the husband) already is a man. Guess that is about as similar a lifestyle as you can get. LOL

[fairisfair]

Originally Posted by Bali Hai

I agree, there is a subsantial change in circumstances. s/he will need condoms, jock straps, a whole new wardrobe and a stand up urnal. That could very well compel a judge to order more alimony.

Well, maybe when he becomes a man, he won't believe in alimony anymore???

[Gracie3787]

Lawrence Roach agreed to pay alimony to his ex WIFE, Julia Roach, until SHE either DIES or remarries.

I can certainly see why the alimony should end,
1. His ex WIFE is no longer an ex WIFE (wife always being a female)
2. Since ex is no longer a woman, and has an entirely new name and identity, it sure seems like it can be argued that the ex wife has, for all intents and purposes, died.

I wonder if the ex has gotten a new SS number, BC, etc along with the sex and name change.
Anyway, just my opinion on the strange situation.

[nextwife]

The other problem is that, if alimony was agreed to end with remarriage, in most states, the ex wife might still be prohibited from marrying a woman because it would technically be a same sex marriage, so he's cheated out of any potential of ending the alimony by marriage.