Transgendered? Fuck you, your legal marraige don't mean shit.

TG Center wrote:

Houston, Texas – July 23, 2010 – Jeers and public threats greeted Mrs. Nikki Araguz outside the Warton County Courthouse today. The Widow of Wharton County firefighter Captain Thomas Araguz, who was killed in the line of duty, was in court for the first hearing in a suit brought by Araguz’s mother, Simona Rodriguez Longoria. The suit claims that Longoria should inherit Capt. Araguz’s widow’s benefits and all marital assets.

Longoria claims that since Mrs. Araguz was legally a male before transitioning to female, and legally changed her gender prior to her subsequent marriage to Capt. Araguz that Longoria, not Mrs. Araguz, should receive all benefits and joint property. This includes any income earned by Mrs. Araguz during the marriage. Mrs. Araguz was the principle wage earner of the couple.

Capt. Araguz’s two children from a previous marriage will receive one half of Capt. Araguz’s $600,000 firemen’s fallen hero benefit regardless of the outcome of this case. They are also entitled to free tuition at Texas State Schools, as will be their children.

Longoria today expanded her claims to the property of Mrs. Araguz, asking the court to seize funds paid by a life insurance policy to which Mrs. Araguz was the named beneficiary. Judge Clapp granted her request, adding those funds to the widow’s benefits and all marital assets currently being held in escrow.

In a victory for Mrs. Araguz, the Judge also prevented Longoria from spending any of those funds or disposing of Capt. and Mrs. Araguz’s marital assets.

Longoria said in court today that her goal was to “freeze Nikki out.” All of Mrs. Araguz’s assets are currently frozen and unavailable to her.

Source.

I want to... I need a drink. Fuck.

Article contains infomation on how you can help Nikki Araguz.

W... hat.
Did everyone just enter derp mode after "born male" was stated?

XLT-100852.0 wrote:

I want to... I need a drink. Fuck.

Absolutely. Of course she should get the money, they were married. I mean, why the fuckity fuck should his other relations get a look in? Was he supporting them? No, he wasn't. He was supporting his wife and children, and they should get the funds.

There are some greedy bastards in the world and it looks as if his family are near the top of the tree.

That is totally fucked up. What makes it even more fucked up is that the court granted the mother-in-law the property earned by Mrs. Araguz. Since when does someone to whom you are not legally wed or indebted to have a right to your property?

Edit: Even if the marriage wasn't valid, why would the assets go to the mother of the deceased? Wouldn't the children be the next-of-kin?

Lady Anne wrote:

Since when does someone to whom you are not legally wed or indebted to have a right to your property?

I don't know about every other country, but in the UK if you're named in the will you get the cash, and the only people who stand an earthly chance of overturning that is someone the deceased was supporting financially.

I know this, because it arose in a case I know of where a friend of mine killed herself and left her fortune (and it was a fortune) to her best friend. Her family made threats in the general direction of the friend, saying they'd challenge the will, but in the end nothing came of it, and the friend learned that they'd been simply advised they didn't have a case.

So in the case above, unless the gent was supporting his mother, she wouldn't get a bean. She could claim it, but she wouldn't have a case, and any decent lawyer would tell her so.

Obviously, I don't know if the same applies in the States.

Quote :

Longoria today expanded her claims to the property of Mrs. Araguz, asking the court to seize funds paid by a life insurance policy to which Mrs. Araguz was the named beneficiary. Judge Clapp granted her request, adding those funds to the widow’s benefits and all marital assets currently being held in escrow.

This is the part I'm REALLY WTFing. It doesn't MATTER if the person named beneficiary is a male, female, trans, queer, straight, black, white.... etc. If they are named the beneficiary, THEY ARE THE BENEFICIARY. That would be something to take up with the insurance firm... how could a judge even possibly think it was legal to take the insurance money? Unless there was evidence of foul play, of course, but in this case? WAT.

I didn't realize it was possible to hate Texas more, yet... now I do.

The MIL is also after Nikki's money as well.

XLT-100852.0 wrote:

The MIL is also after Nikki's money as well.

I noticed that and it's outrageous. Surely if Nikki earned it, she gets to keep it - I find it hard to believe that any judge would come out with any other decision. But having said that, I don't live in Texas.

I feel physically ill.

Not only has this woman just lost her husband, her mother-in-law and the courts are telling her that her relationship meant nothing. And the mother-in-law is trying to steal everything else, too.

No feelings for you!

I don't use this term lightly, but this woman (MIL) is evil, and the judge is either blind or complicit.

What... I...

The fuck does being born male have to do with who gets to inherit? How in sam hell are they building a case out of that? Somebody please enlighten me.


Also, wow. And I thought there had to be some sort of rock bottom to this whole 'morality' thing, from which Texas could sink no lower. Apparently not.

I think we've found the reason for the ex- in "Araguz's ex-wife"... What a nice pair of hyenas. <-- note carefully thought-out gender-neutral insult.

Quote :

article contains information on how you can help Nikki

Would that include the phrase "I know just the man"?

Seriously, I think all problems stem from not knowing whether Araguz knew his wife was transgendered and was fine with it, right? On the other hand, he clearly wasn't fine anymore with his ex-wife or we wouldn't have a Mrs. Nikki Araguz in the first place. Personally I think there's no case. If she had not been transgendered, they would try and claim her wedding is invalid on the basis that she had fake boobs, or that she had converted from Shintoism and never told his husband. Heh, that's deception, isn't it?

I'm sorry, did I miss the part where it's illegal in Texas for a transgender person to marry? She is legally a woman, isn't she? And she was at the time of the marriage, so WTF is the mother-in-law's case against her?
This is a personal issue. Mom just hated her; the transgender thing is just an excuse.

But an exuse that's seen as acceptable, if the judge's decisions are anything to go by.

Well, the judge's decisions so far seem to be aimed at preventing either party from spending the money.

What I think he should have done is to throw the MIL and party's case out the window and watch it bounce, but he hasn't. I can't understand why he hasn't because so far nobody's claimed that the deceased was supporting the MIL etc. But it may be that US law on this is different from UK law, and she has a valid claim of some sort.

XLT-100852.0 wrote:

Lady Anne wrote:

Edit: Even if the marriage wasn't valid, why would the assets go to the mother of the deceased? Wouldn't the children be the next-of-kin?

TG Center wrote:

Capt. Araguz’s two children from a previous marriage will receive one half of Capt. Araguz’s $600,000 firemen’s fallen hero benefit regardless of the outcome of this case. They are also entitled to free tuition at Texas State Schools, as will be their children.

I saw that. But, if the marriage wasn't valid and no will was left, wouldn't all of the assets go to the next-of-kin (in this case, the children)? And if the marriage was considered invalid for some reason, wouldn't Nikki's assets still belong to her?

This case is majorly fucked up. WTF is wrong with that judge, and what has he been smoking? And that MIL is a total bitch.

When I read this story, I mimed pointing a gun at my head, and then realized that that sums up the entirety of my opinion on the matter.

Classic story of how a woman doesn't/can't accept her son's choice or respect his wishes EVEN AFTER HIS DEATH. What the fucking fuck? I would haunt the shit out of her if I were him.

If you don't like it, fine, but why would you take legal action against something to which you should have no legal right? Simply because you can, apparently!

pirategrrl wrote:

Classic story of how a woman doesn't/can't accept her son's choice or respect his wishes EVEN AFTER HIS DEATH. What the fucking fuck? I would haunt the shit out of her if I were him.

If you don't like it, fine, but why would you take legal action against something to which you should have no legal right? Simply because you can, apparently!

And because it's Texas (with apologies to all the normal Texans out there).

Lexin wrote:

Well, the judge's decisions so far seem to be aimed at preventing either party from spending the money.

What I think he should have done is to throw the MIL and party's case out the window and watch it bounce, but he hasn't. I can't understand why he hasn't because so far nobody's claimed that the deceased was supporting the MIL etc. But it may be that US law on this is different from UK law, and she has a valid claim of some sort.

It depends - if there is a will and it's being probated, then any contest to that will by any party with standing to do so throws all the assets into escrow until the will contest is resolved.

If he died intestate (as in, died with no will), then wife gets half and each child gets one-quarter of whatever estate there is.

It also depends on Texas' marriage law - in some states, even if you are now legally a female you may still be denied the right to marry a male if your birth certificate states you are a male. Or the marriage may not be recognized if doing so offends public policy (a nice broad catch-all term if there ever was one).

Here's a Houston Chronicle article. It answers a few of the questions that have come up.

Drabbler wrote:

Here's a Houston Chronicle article. It answers a few of the questions that have come up.

Errr. . . no, actually, it just made the whole thing a lot more confusing, but it does make the judge's actions look a bit more sane in context. Also,

TFA wrote:

. . . because of Thomas Araguz's July 4 death in an egg farm inferno.

Is it just me, or is that about the funniest description of a death ever? It's right up there with "girl dies in a tragic blimp accident over the Orange Bowl on New Years' Day."

Lady Anne wrote:

pirategrrl wrote:

Classic story of how a woman doesn't/can't accept her son's choice or respect his wishes EVEN AFTER HIS DEATH. What the fucking fuck? I would haunt the shit out of her if I were him.

If you don't like it, fine, but why would you take legal action against something to which you should have no legal right? Simply because you can, apparently!

And because it's Texas (with apologies to all the normal Texans out there).

I'm a Texan.

This article is one of the reasons that Texas and I have a love/hate relationship.

gaijinguy wrote:

Drabbler wrote:

Here's a Houston Chronicle article. It answers a few of the questions that have come up.

Errr. . . no, actually, it just made the whole thing a lot more confusing, but it does make the judge's actions look a bit more sane in context. Also,

TFA wrote:

. . . because of Thomas Araguz's July 4 death in an egg farm inferno.

Is it just me, or is that about the funniest description of a death ever?"

I'm still trying to figure out how one could die in an 'egg farm inferno.' I'm assuming the coops caught fire and burned down, but I can't help having visions of all the eggs suddenly exploding like live hand grenades and the chickens disappearing in a flash of smoke and feathers.

Rabid Badger wrote:

I'm still trying to figure out how one could die in an 'egg farm inferno.' I'm assuming the coops caught fire and burned down, but I can't help having visions of all the eggs suddenly exploding like live hand grenades and the chickens disappearing in a flash of smoke and feathers.

My mental image of it involves the smell. It'd be an awful lot like breakfast.

As for the actual story, there's not much I can say except that that mother in law needs to fuck right off.