In re Estate of Gardiner, 85,030.
Decision Date | 15 March 2002 |
Docket Number | No. 85,030.,85,030. |
Parties | IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF MARSHALL G. GARDINER, Deceased. |
Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Sanford P. Krigel, of Krigel & Krigel, P.C., of Kansas City, Missouri, argued the cause, and Karen S. Rosenberg, of the same firm, was with him on the briefs for appellant, J'Noel Gardiner.
William M. Modrcin, of Morrison & Hecker, L.L.P., of Kansas City, Missouri, argued the cause, and David G. Watkins, of the same firm, and John F. Thompson, of Davis, Beall, McGuire & Thompson, of Leavenworth, were with him on the briefs for appellee, Joseph M. Gardiner, III.
Aronda Strutt Kerns, of Wichita, and Patrick T. Gillen, of Thomas More Center for Law & Justice, of Ann Arbor, Michigan, were on the brief for amicus curiae Thomas More Center for Law & Justice.
Lisa Nathanson, of American Civil Liberties Union of Kansas and Western Missouri, of Kansas City; Doni Gewirtzman, Ruth E. Harlow, Beatrice Dohrn, and Evan Wolfson, of the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc., of New York, New York; and Pamela Sumners, of the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois, of Chicago, Illinois, were on the brief for amici curiae Gender Public Advocacy Coalition and American Civil Liberties Union of Kansas and Western Missouri.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
J'Noel Gardiner appealed from the district court's entry of summary judgment in favor of Joseph M. Gardiner, III, (Joe) in the probate proceeding of Marshall G. Gardiner. The district court had concluded that the marriage between Joe's father, Marshall, and J'Noel, a post-operative male-to-female transsexual, was void under Kansas law.
The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for the district court's determination whether J'Noel was male or female at the time the marriage license was issued. See In re Estate of Gardiner, 29 Kan. App.2d 92, 22 P.3d 1086 (2001). The Court of Appeals directed the district court to consider a number of factors in addition to chromosomes. Joe's petition for review of the decision of the Court of Appeals was granted by this court.
The following facts regarding J'Noel's personal background are taken from the opinion of the Court of Appeals:
Before meeting Marshall, J'Noel was married to S.P., a female. J'Noel and S.P. met and began living together in 1980, while J'Noel was in college. They married in 1988. J'Noel testified she and S.P. engaged in heterosexual relations during their relationship. J'Noel believed she was capable of fathering children, and the couple used birth control so S.P. would not become pregnant. J'Noel and S.P. divorced in May 1994.
J'Noel Ball and Marshall Gardiner were married in Kansas in September 1998. Marshall died intestate in August 1999. This legal journey started with Joe filing a petition for letters of administration, alleging that J'Noel had waived any rights to Marshall's estate. J'Noel filed an objection and asked that letters of administration be issued to her. The court then appointed a special administrator. Joe amended his petition, alleging that he was the sole heir in that the marriage between J'Noel and Marshall was void since J'Noel was born a man. J'Noel argues that she is a biological female and was at the time of her marriage to Marshall. There is no dispute that J'Noel is a transsexual.
According to Stedman's Medical Dictionary 1841 (26th ed. 1995), a transsexual is a "person with the external genitalia and secondary sexual characteristics of one sex, but whose personal identification and psychosocial configuration is that of the opposite sex; a study of morphologic, genetic, and gonadal structure may be genitally congruent or incongruent." A post-operative transsexual, such as J'Noel, is a person who has undergone medical and surgical procedures to alter "external sexual characteristics so that they resemble those of the opposite sex." Stedman's Med. Dict. 1841 (26th ed. 1995). The external sexual characteristics may include genitalia, body and facial hair, breasts, voice, and facial features.
Joe opposed J'Noel's receiving a spousal share of Marshall's estate on several grounds—waiver, fraud, and void marriage in that J'Noel remained a male for the purpose of the "opposite sex" requirement of K.S.A. 2001 Supp. 23-101.
On cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court denied J'Noel's motion by declining to give full faith and credit to J'Noel's Wisconsin birth certificate, which had been amended as to sex and name. Joe's waiver argument was based on a writing that purports to waive J'Noel's interests in Marshall's property. The district court declined to conclude as a matter of law that the writing constituted a waiver. The factual issue of fraud was not decided on summary judgment. The district court granted Joe's motion with regard to the validity of the marriage on the ground that J'Noel is a male.
J'Noel appealed from the district court's entry of summary judgment against her and in Joe's favor. Joe did not cross-appeal. The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's ruling denying J'Noel's motion for summary judgment. J'Noel did not file a cross-petition for review of that ruling, and it is not before this court. Since Joe did not file a cross-appeal of the district court's decision on waiver and fraud, those issues are likewise not before the court. The sole issue for review is whether the district court erroneously entered summary judgment in favor of Joe on the ground that J'Noel's marriage to Marshall was void.
On the question of validity of the marriage of a post-operative transsexual, there are two distinct "lines" of cases. One judges validity of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Marie v. Moser
...Kansas Court of Appeals decision In re Estate of Gardiner, 29 Kan.App.2d 92, 22 P.3d 1086 (2001), aff'd in part, rev'd in part, 273 Kan. 191, 42 P.3d 120 (2002) controls the constitutional questions raised by plaintiffs' motion. In Gardiner, the Kansas Court of Appeals rejected plaintiff's ......
-
Radtke v. Miscellaneous Drivers & Helpers Union Local # 638 Health, Welfare, Eye & Dental Fund, Civil File No. 10–4175 (MJD/JJG).
...refusing to recognize marriages between a transgender individual and an individual of the opposite sex. See In re Estate of Gardiner, 273 Kan. 191, 42 P.3d 120, 137 (2002); Kantaras v. Kantaras, 884 So.2d 155, 161 (Fla.Ct.App.2004); Littleton v. Prange, 9 S.W.3d 223, 231 (Tex.Ct.App.1999); ......
-
In re RW Heilig
...supra, at 225. Regardless of its cause, the accounts from transsexuals themselves are startlingly consistent. See, e.g., In re Estate of Gardiner, 42 P.3d 120 (Kan.2002); Littleton v. Prange, 9 S.W.3d 223, 224 (Tex.Ct.App.1999); M.T. v. J.T., 140 N.J.Super. 77, 355 A.2d 204, 205 (App.Div.19......
-
In re Estate, Docket No. 309640.
...other jurisdictions have reached this conclusion, see Kantaras v. Kantaras, 884 So.2d 155 (Fla.App.2004) and In re Estate of Gardiner, 273 Kan. 191, 214, 42 P.3d 120 (2002), but we need not do so ...
-
Conflict of Laws in Kansas: a Guide to Navigating the Dismal Swamp
...to R.S. 23-115). 120. See K.S.A. 2001 Supp. 23-101; K.S.A. 2001 Supp. 23-115. 121. 29 Kan. App. 2d 92, 22 P.3d 1086 (2001), rev'd Kan. , 42 P.3d 120 (2002). 122. 29 Kan. App. 2d at 95-96. 123. 29 Kan. App. 2d at 121-25, 127-28. 124. Kan. at , 42 P.3d at 136-37. 125. In re Troemper's Estate,......
-
Theorizing and litigating the rights of sexual minorities.
...I'M LOOKING THROUGH YOU (2008); JENNIFER FINNEY BOYLAN, SITE'S NOT THERE: A LIFE IN TWO GENDERS (2004). (104) In re Estate of Gardiner, 42 P.3d 120 (Kan. (105) Id. at 137. (106) Sally F. Goldfarb, Disasters, Families, and the Law, 28 WOMEN'S RTS. L. REP. 35, 41 (2007). (107) Susan J. Becker......
-
Chapter 6: Family Law
...and her husband who was a post‑ operative female‑to‑male transsexual person was void ab initio ; and that 3. In re Estate of Gardiner, 273 Kan. 191, 212–213, 42 P.3d 120 (2002), cert . den. 537 U.S. 825 (2002). 4. A primary amenorrhea due to müllerian duct ageneis, resulting in absence of t......
-
Does a marriage really need sex? A critical analysis of the gender restriction on marriage.
...the amendment was intended for "inaccuracies." Littleton, 9 S.W.3d at 231. (110.) Littleton, 9 S.W.3d at 230. (111.) Id. at 231. (112.) 42 P.3d 120 (Kan. (113.) Id. at 121-22. (114.) Id. (115.) See id. at 122-23 (discussing J'Noel's medical history and failing to mention her chromosomes, on......