(decedent and spouse married in Michigan in 1984, and moved to PA; in 2003, husband underwent gender reassignment to have female genitalia installed; husband's conduct destroyed marriage relationship with wife and wife taken back to MI in 2005 to live with daughter; children, as mother's guardian, filed for divorce on mother's behalf because she was suffering from dementia (age 79); husband filed motion for summary judgment on basis that children had no authority to file divorce on behalf of incapacitated ward; trial court disagreed and denied husband's motion; husband filed second motion for summary judgment on basis that trial court lacked jurisdiction to grant divorce because husband's conduct made him a "woman" which severed the marital relationship because of MI's constitutional and statutory ban on homosexual marriage; trial court denied husband's second motion; on appeal, court affirmed on both points; nothing in state statutory law or caselaw bars a guardian or conservator from filing complaint for divorce on behalf of incompetent spouse; parties entered into lawful marriage contract at time of marriage that they cannot mutually or unilaterally sever; marriage is more than a civil contract and only a court can terminate the relationship by decree of divorce; in any event, court noted that gender reassignment surgery has no effect in changing gender of person involved because chromosome makeup when person created not impacted and can never be altered).
In re Estate of Burnett, No. 309640, 2013 Mich. App. LEXIS 691 (Mich. Ct. App. Apr. 16, 2013)
Date of decision:
The Center for Agricultural Law and Taxation does not provide legal advice. Any information provided on this website is not intended to be a substitute for legal services from a competent professional. The Center's work is supported by fee-based seminars and generous private gifts. Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in the material contained on this website do not necessarily reflect the views of Iowa State University.