Posted on 07/24/2007 9:42:07 AM PDT by DogByte6RER
Alimony still required after ex-wife enters domestic partnership
ASSOCIATED PRESS
July 24, 2007
LOS ANGELES – A judge has ordered a man to continue paying alimony to his ex-wife – even though she is in a registered domestic partnership with another woman and uses the other woman's last name.
California marriage laws state alimony ends when a former spouse remarries, and Ron Garber thought that meant he was off the hook when he learned his ex-wife had registered her new relationship under the state's domestic partnership law.
An Orange County judge didn't see it that way.
The judge ruled that a registered partnership is cohabitation, not marriage, and Garber must keep writing the checks, $1,250 a month, to his ex-wife, Melinda Kirkwood. Garber plans to appeal.
The case highlights questions about the legal status of domestic partnerships, an issue the California Supreme Court is weighing as it considers whether same-sex marriage is legal.
An appeals court upheld the state's ban on same-sex marriage last year, citing the state's domestic partners law and ruling that it was up to the Legislature to decide whether gays could wed.
Lawyers arguing in favor of same-sex marriage say they will cite the June ruling in the Orange County case as a reason to unite gay and heterosexual couples under one system: marriage.
In legal briefs due in August to the California Supreme Court, Therese Stewart, chief deputy city attorney for San Francisco, intends to argue that same-sex couples should have access to marriage, and domestic partnership doesn't provide the same reverence and respect as marriage.
The alimony ruling shows “the irrationality of having a separate, unequal scheme” for same-sex partners, Stewart said.
Garber knew his former wife was living with another woman when he agreed to the alimony, but he said he didn't know the two women had registered with the state as domestic partners under a law that was intended to mirror marriage.
“This is not about gay or lesbian,” Garber said. “This is about the law being fair.”
Kirkwood's attorney, Edwin Fahlen, said the agreement was binding regardless of whether his client was registered as a domestic partner or even married.
He said both sides agreed the pact could not be modified and that Garber waived his right to investigate the nature of Kirkwood's relationship.
Garber's attorney, William M. Hulsy, disagreed.
“If he had signed that agreement under the same factual scenario except marriage, not domestic partnership, his agreement to pay spousal support would be null and void,” Hulsy said.
Legitimizing this arrangement as “marriage” is far worse than this one guy having to pay alimony that he agreed to in spite of knowing that she was in a relationship with another woman. He could and should have, put a provision in the settlement agreement ending alimony in case of cohabitation, marriage, or domestic partnership.
But consider what a beautiful way to hate men it is! Imagine having a check from some (spit) MAN come in every month, when you neither need nor want one!
then the a-hole liberals who created this sodomite law either forgot, or on purpose left out the important clause, that would prevent this further travesty....
the straight guy takes ‘it in the shorts’ so to speak.....dont call it marriage but correct the law to prevent alimony in such cases....
This sounds like the guy messed up and agreed to alimony in lieu of a property split. I don’t think he could get out of alimony even if she married another man.
I think that about sums it up!
Then you could participate in the same style relationship as your ex.
Not of your choosing of course....
Then you could participate in the same style relationship as your ex.
Not of your choosing of course....
She’d never get a dime from me, regardless.
This guy’s lawyer is the one who screwed up and gave him bad advice.
Exactly. The term I've seen is "entering into a meretricious relationship." That covers any living together with a sexual relationship, of any flavor.
Yes, but in California the alimony results from any disomaster run can be waived/negotiated. However, child support is going to be awarded, no matter what, assuming children are involved.
It’s an evil, sick, and depraved ruling.
Another end run for the gay crowd. The judge did right while the gays thought they had another court case like the one here in Tx to go around the law by making new laws without public consent or knowledge.
You are right. The judge should have initially ruled no alimony.
You are also absolutely correct that this is legalized de-facto for the gay crowd. I think the judge realized that.
In this case; it was the right ruling unless, of course, you want the gays to have legalized marriage with benefit of going through the system.
giggle. It’s that Tx case that brought it to light or I wouldn’t have thought about it either except that this guy really did get shafted, unfortunately.
Btw, I have worked in a legal department for the last 11 years; not that that means anything; and it doesn’t. Because if people don’t know about the Tx case; who would put 2 and 2 together?
Thank God, maybe this judge understood this. Courts, especially judges do not like to be made fools of.
That did surprise me about alimony in CA, since they are I believe, a community property state which allows not alimoney; only child support.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.