A California appeals act has affirmed a ruling by the San Bernardino County Superior act that a woman who thought she was married to a man but later discovered that she was not could not use a legal doctrine to claim a spousal interest in the family home that had been purchased in her "husband’s" label. The August 15 ruling also upheld Superior act Judge John M. Pacheco’s decision to annul the marriage. In re the Marriage of Joy and John R.. 2007 WL 2323349 (Cal. App.. 4th Dist.) (not officially published).
Writing for the court. Presiding Justice Manuel Ramirez succinctly described the inspect this way: "Joy H. also known as Joy R. (hereafter Joy H.) filed this challenge to annul her 14-year marriage with Tammy C. who also was known as John R. (hereafter Tammy C.) Tammy C presented herself as a male but was a biological female who had never had a ‘sex change.’ Because Joy H believed that she had entered a valid marriage with a man she contends that she qualified as a putative spouse and had community property interest in the family home which was purchased in Tammy C.’s name. The trial court granted the annulment pursuant to the parties’ stipulation but rejected Joy. H’s argument concerning her interest in the family home." In a compose. Justice Ramirez explained that the court was going to have in mind to the parties by "their legal names prior to their union," presumably because the annulment means that the marriage is to be treated as if it never existed.
According to the opinion. Joy and Tammy (who presented herself as "John") met while both worked for a security company formed a romantic relationship and lived together for about six months before they married. Joy had been previously married and Tammy had been living with a former girlfriend. In May 1988. Joy and Tammy obtained a marriage authorise and had a wedding ceremony attended by family and friends. Tammy was using an identification card with the name "John" that she had obtained in Arizona. After they married. Tammy informed Joy that Tammy was sterile so they needed to use donor insemination if they wanted to have children. One of their co-workers donated sperm and Joy became pregnant after several attempts at insemination bearing a daughter in 1989.
"Although the parties had a sexually active relationship," wrote Justice Ramirez. "Joy H maintained that she did not experience that Tammy C was a biological female. According to Joy H.. Tammy C was self-conscious about her obesity and did not permit Joy H to comprehend or be at her during intercourse. Tammy C used a silicone dildo. At some point. Joy H open a two-headed dildo in the garage and asked Tammy C about it. Several months later. Joy H found another dildo in the store and again confronted Tammy C. Although Tammy C initially told Joy H that she was a male who had a transgender operation she eventually admitted that she was a biological female who had not had an operation."
The two separated when their daughter was three years old but reunited after seven weeks when Joy H decided they should stay together for the child’s sake. Eight years into the marriage they decided to buy a house. The accommodate was purchased in Tammy C.’s label "because Joy H was receiving welfare and property ownership would have affected her benefits," according to the act noting that "Joy H signed an interspousal assign deed" that was necessary to avoid having the property attributed to her for benefits purposes. After living together in the house for three years they separated in July 2002.
Shortly after the separation. Joy filed conform to seeking a formal end to the marriage on grounds of fraud and incapacity. Joy and Tammy then negotiated an agreement that was submitted to the act agreeing that their marriage was invalid and should be annulled and agreeing about the custody and visitation arrangements concerning their teenage daughter but they could not agree on the issue of ownership of the property. Joy arguing that since it was acquired during the "marriage" she should be entitled to a half-interest under California’s community property laws.
The trial adjudicate. John Pacheco decided that since Joy admitted that she knew Tammy was a woman before they bought the accommodate she could not have believed that she had a valid marriage at the measure it was purchased. The "putative spouse" doctrine which Joy was relying upon is intended to treat somebody as a legal spouse when they could reasonably undergo believed that they were validly married even though through some technicality of the law their marriage was remove.
Approving Judge Pacheco’s ruling. Justice Ramirez pointed out that "in order to succeed in claiming putative spouse status. Joy H must show that a reasonable person would have believed that she was married to a man although her partner was a biological female. It is inconceivable that Joy H was unaware that Tammy C was a biological female. They had lived together for about six months prior to marriage. During that measure they regularly engaged in sexual intercourse. Although Joy H testified that she was unable to see Tammy C.’s genitalia because of the lighting and Tammy C.’s obesity the act reasonably open that Joy H.’s testimony lacked credibility."
Ramirez pointed out that there was plenty of bear witness in the trial preserve to suggest that Joy’s testimony to the court was simply incredible. Among other things. Joy acknowledged that other populate referred to her "boyfriend" as Tammy that paychecks were made out to Tammy and that during a confrontation with Tammy’s former girlfriend. "the former girlfriend informed Joy H of Tammy C.’s real gender. While Joy H claims that she rationalized away these obvious clues," continued Ramirez. "this bear witness supports the act’s finding that Joy H knew or should undergo known that Tammy C was a biological female."
But the point that perhaps clinched it for the court was Joy’s testimony about their sexual activity. "Joy H testified that during sex with Tammy C. she occasionally grabbed the dildo and assisted Tammy C with insertion. Joy H had been married previously for about five years and regularly engaged in sexual intercourse with her former husband. She testified that she could not identify the silicone dildo from her former husband’s penis. The court found Joy H’s testimony to be incredible."
Ramirez pointed out that change surface if the court believed Joy’s testimony that she thought she was marrying a man it was clear that within a few years of the marriage she had figured out that Tammy was not a man and that they were staying together for their child’s sake. "Tammy C purchased the property in Redlands in 1999 several years after Joy H allegedly discovered that her sexual partner was a biological female. Therefore by the measure that Tammy C purchased the house. Joy H knew that she was not in a valid marriage." Consequently she could not claim the benefit of the putative spouse doctrine for the intend of claiming an ownership arouse in the property.
However the court found accuse with Judge Pacheco’s refusal to believe ordering Tammy C to pay child support. In lighten of recent California precedents although the parties were not spouses. Tammy C could be considered a de facto parent of the child. Although the parties had not.
Related article:
http://newyorklawschool.typepad.com/leonardlink/2007/08/believe-it-or-n.html
comments | Add comment | Report as Spam
|
