Widow of fallen firefighter gets shafted

[Chuck Bao]

I have not seen this story posted here yet and I would be interested to see the responses of some posters here. This case could prove more important than just a human interest story.

It is still hard to discern all of the details accurately yet. But, it is purported that:

* The widow was the breadwinner of the family and actually contributed the bulk of the marital estate.

* The widow didn’t complete her sex reassignment surgery until during their 2-year marriage.

Now, I would contend that this is a travesty of the highest order. I mean you, Mr. Heterosexual Man. If your wife were born a man, you should know this type of stuff.

Yet again, Fox News makes it an even worse travesty for painting the widow as living out a lie.

http://www.dallasvoice.com/judge-bars-fallen-firefighters-transgender-widow-from-collecting-spending-death-benefits-1035665.html


Widow Braves Hostile Court Proceedings

Houston, Texas – July 23, 2010 – Jeers and public threats greeted Mrs. Nikki Araguz outside the Wharton 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 principal 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.

[Frozen Sooner]

Based on the article posted, I think you have the sequence of events wrong. It appears from the article that the gender reassignment and legal gender change occurred before the marriage.

If the gender change was after the marriage, it's an easy case-sadly, she'd get nothing, as under Texas law her marriage is a nullity.

[Chuck Bao]

Based on the article posted, I think you have the sequence of events wrong. It appears from the article that the gender reassignment and legal gender change occurred before the marriage.

If the gender change was after the marriage, it's an easy case-sadly, she'd get nothing, as under Texas law her marriage is a nullity.

You may be right. I was just going by the Dallas Voice.com website, which I posted a link to.


Thomas Araguz’s parents say Nikki Araguz hid from their son her transgender status. But Nikki Araguz claims he knew and that she had sex-reassignment surgery after they were married.

I don't know if she is proving or disproving her case. It's a pretty sad deal either way.

[Frozen Sooner]

Hm. Wonder if you can get your gender legally changed before undergoing the surgery? If so, that could explain the discrepancy. If she's legally a female at the time of the marriage, I suppose it wouldn't matter under Texas law what actual equipment she had under the hood.

There's a host of issues that aren't brought up in the article that the court's going to have to address. My gut feeling is that the parents lose on this one unless they can come up with 1) damn convincing evidence that their son had no idea that Nikki used to be Nick and 2) that their son wouldn't have married Nikki had he known.

[Chuck Bao]

Hm. Wonder if you can get your gender legally changed before undergoing the surgery? If so, that could explain the discrepancy. If she's legally a female at the time of the marriage, I suppose it wouldn't matter under Texas law what actual equipment she had under the hood.

There's a host of issues that aren't brought up in the article that the court's going to have to address. My gut feeling is that the parents lose on this one unless they can come up with 1) damn convincing evidence that their son had no idea that Nikki used to be Nick and 2) that their son wouldn't have married Nikki had he known.

This time, I hope you are right.

It also raises an interesting legal question about gender status. Exactly what state agency would grant a change in gender status? And would they necessarily need to verify even if the replumbing surgery weren't already completed? Strangely enough, I thought hospitals offering the service did a package deal with the paperwork included.

[olevetonahill]

The Mom prolly just figures that Old Nick/i aint got the balls to fight her :D

[Chuck Bao]

The Mom prolly just figures that Old Nick/i aint got the balls to fight her :D

And since when has the lack of balls ever stopped an ex-wife from screwing over her ex-husband in divorce proceedings?

The fact that the wife in this tragic case did in fact have balls at one time should be immaterial.

The mother-in-law should be ashamed. I mean even more so than her claim that her son unwittingly married a former man.

[Phil]

Kind of ****ty to go after the wife's earnings during the marriage, especially because if the mom's position is correct, there would be no marital assets, since there was never a legal marriage. If no marriage, no marital assets.

[sooner ngintunr]

She wants the life insurance policy as well? WTF??

[Leroy Lizard]

Society has gone to Hell.

[badger]

At least his kids will be taken care of. Free tuition to Texas state schools for them and the kids' kids. Even if you question the courts, at least the kids get their share of the $600k regardless.

If I had to guess, the widow told the husband, but neither of them ever told the parents. I think most guys would be able to separate a born-chick from a converted-chick... maybe not in public, but during a full relationship. They're probably taking their revenge on "her" now because they feel deceived.

[Leroy Lizard]

(deleted)

[soonerboomer93]

Is the life insurance policy contingent on the marriage though?

I mean, can't I legally go out, get a life insurance policy and name anyone I wan't as the beneficiary?

momma is probably going after that and the marital earnings hoping that she can use that as leverage to get the share of the 600k that doesn't go to the kids.

[Leroy Lizard]

Is the life insurance policy contingent on the marriage though?

I mean, can't I legally go out, get a life insurance policy and name anyone I wan't as the beneficiary?

momma is probably going after that and the marital earnings hoping that she can use that as leverage to get the share of the 600k that doesn't go to the kids.

I'm on the momma's side. She probably won't win, but I'm pulling for her anyway.

[olevetonahill]

And since when has the lack of balls ever stopped an ex-wife from screwing over her ex-husband in divorce proceedings?

The fact that the wife in this tragic case did in fact have balls at one time should be immaterial.

The mother-in-law should be ashamed. I mean even more so than her claim that her son unwittingly married a former man.

I were making a JOKE bro ;)


I'm on the momma's side. She probably won't win, but I'm pulling for her anyway.

You would be.

[Okla-homey]

Is the life insurance policy contingent on the marriage though?

I mean, can't I legally go out, get a life insurance policy and name anyone I wan't as the beneficiary?



Yep. The beneficiary named by the policyholder gets the benefit amount. End of story. The only fly in the ointment is if the beneficiary killed, or conspired to kill, the insured life. If that's proven, the company cannot pay, at least under Okie law, that named beneficiary.

Therefore, after people's divorces are finalized, they must remember to change the beneficiary on their life insurance policy. Otherwise we can end up with the "merry widow" scenario.

One other interesting tid bit. You are generally able to name anyone as your beneficiary, but not just anyone can pay to insure your life. They have to be related to you or somehow reliant on you. Makes sense if you think about it. Otherwise, people just might engage in buying life insurance on old street bums then just waiting until they croak...KA-CHING!

[GottaHavePride]

I'm on the momma's side. She probably won't win, but I'm pulling for her anyway.


So you want the mother to be able to seize all the money that the wife earned while working during the marriage? That sounds like court-assisted theft to me.

[Chuck Bao]

I don't think we are yet getting all of the details of this story. If anyone in the Houston area sees anything about this story, please post it.

Leroy's opinion aside, I wonder why the widow was met with jeers and public threats. Could it be that the Fox News broadcast that she was living a lie have anything to do with it?

Was the insurance policy taken out by the Fire Department in the event of such tragedy that occurred? And, people are just angry that a post-op female dared to receive the benefits from the death of a hero volunteer firefighter?

[Okla-homey]

And, people are just angry that a post-op female dared to receive the benefits from the death of a hero volunteer firefighter?

It may not be that Chuck. My sense is the guy's mom feels the deceased fireman was somehow duped into marrying a post-op tranny. Now, if he honestly didn't know "she" had a Y chromosome when they married, that's one thing.

But I don't see how one could be with such a person (that way) and not know what one were getting into. As I understand it, the sheer volume of meds trannies must take to prevent recurrence of male characteristics and/or to maintain female characteristics would be pretty obvious, if not in the medicine cabinet, but on the pharmacy bill. That, and all the other more subtle cues.

[Ike]

I had read something on this several days ago, and my memory tells me that some of the details were as follows (with Austin Powers immitations in quotes):

A) When they got married, firefighter did not know that his wife "was a man, baby".

B) Some time later, wife told firefighter "I'm a man, baby."

C) After said revelation, firefighter separated from wife.

D) Not very long after that, he perished in the line of duty.


I could be wrong on all of that, but that seems to be what I remember.

[soonerboomer93]

Yep. The beneficiary named by the policyholder gets the benefit amount. End of story. The only fly in the ointment is if the beneficiary killed, or conspired to kill, the insured life. If that's proven, the company cannot pay, at least under Okie law, that named beneficiary.

Therefore, after people's divorces are finalized, they must remember to change the beneficiary on their life insurance policy. Otherwise we can end up with the "merry widow" scenario.

One other interesting tid bit. You are generally able to name anyone as your beneficiary, but not just anyone can pay to insure your life. They have to be related to you or somehow reliant on you. Makes sense if you think about it. Otherwise, people just might engage in buying life insurance on old street bums then just waiting until they croak...KA-CHING!

didn't they recently arrest some ladies in LA for doing exactly that. Insuring some street bums, but I think they were also killing them.

[Soonerfan88]

I don't care if she did lie about being 'a man, baby' his mother does not deserve the money the wife earned during the marriage. And even if they did separate not long before he died, he failed to change beneficiaries for his life insurance so mom shouldn't get that either. As someone earlier posted, this happens all the time after divorces but the ex still gets the money. It was a valid marriage and separation does not mean divorce so shouldn't all marital assets be the wife's unless they can prove she killed him, no matter who lied about what?

Sounds to me like mom is being greedy and trying to get back at a daughter-in-law she hated. This has nothing to do with what's right or what the deceased wanted, IMO.

[Leroy Lizard]

didn't they recently arrest some ladies in LA for doing exactly that. Insuring some street bums, but I think they were also killing them.

A case like that occurred in Oakland maybe ten years ago.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

Chuck, there is a lot going on here...

By state law, he is still a man, just chopped up. Texas does not allow or recognize same sex marriage.

The two either lied at an earlier deposition regarding his children's from a prior marriage custody hearing as he said he was not aware he was a man before he was chopped up, and he found out only at the deposition, or they knew all along and committed perjury. I personally find that hard to believe that he didn't know. I mean they can do good surgery, but that good?

I think the laws and in-laws don't liked the chopped up guy and perhaps the son/son-in-law as well.

There was separation. Though I am not as clear as to when or by what reason.

Personally, I don't think chopped up guy is entitled to anything, but I reserve final judgement. I mean chopped up guy at least knew the marriage was illegal in Texas. Why didn't they travel out of state to get married?

Its all about the $600,000 in death benefits for the killed in the line of duty firefighter... An egg farm went down and he was trapped in the wreckage.

[olevetonahill]

Like has been said
I havnt read every thing about this . But the Mom Aint entitled to anything of the False womans ;)

[OULenexaman]

so many freaks these days.....what would God rule?

[Frozen Sooner]

Chuck, there is a lot going on here...

By state law, he is still a man, just chopped up.

According to the article, she had her gender legally changed.

[Okla-homey]

According to the article, she had her gender legally changed.

Which, is probably admissible as evidence he's a girl, but I suspect there remains a fact question as to his gender. And my money would be on the DNA and a Texas jury deciding he's a man baby.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

According to the article, she had her gender legally changed.

Texas doesn't recognize that.

By law, you are the gender what your chromosomes are. Those can't be changed no how, not even by a legal decree.

[Frozen Sooner]

Texas doesn't recognize that.

By law, you are the gender what your chromosomes are. Those can't be changed no how, not even by a legal decree.

Ah. The article seemed to indicate that her gender change was granted by Texas.

Go back to my first couple of posts, then. If she wasn't legally female at the time of the marriage, then under Texas law they weren't married. Easy case on the question of whether she's entitled to spouse survivor benefits then.

[PDXsooner]

I wonder what she looked like. Also, what does a fake vagina look like?

[Chuck Bao]

Texas doesn't recognize that.

By law, you are the gender what your chromosomes are. Those can't be changed no how, not even by a legal decree.

Apparently some department in the state of Texas is willing to change gender status. And, I'd bet that getting a marriage license in Texas would not require DNA tests.

Maybe the most important lesson here is that Texan post-op females should get married in some other state and then the chromosome thing wouldn't be a point of contention.

This all sounds like nuts to me, but it does bring up some very interesting questions.

[Frozen Sooner]

Apparently some department in the state of Texas is willing to change gender status. And, I'd bet that getting a marriage license in Texas would not require DNA tests.

Maybe the most important lesson here is that Texan post-op females should get married in some other state and then the chromosome thing wouldn't be a point of contention.

This all sounds like nuts to me, but it does bring up some very interesting questions.

The problem there is that under DOMA the marriage still wouldn't be recognized under Texas law.

[Chuck Bao]

The problem there is that under DOMA the marriage still wouldn't be recognized under Texas law.

Now, I am confused. I thought DOMA was a federal act passed by congress and the issue of marriage licenses still under states' rights. So, the Texas law specificially states that it will not recognize any marriage licenses issued in Texas or ANY OTHER STATES subject to a chromosome challenge and that challenge would be upheld in a court of law due to DOMA?

Am I getting warm?

If that is the case, DOMA needs to be repealed immediately. The federal government is either in the marriage business or it is not.

For some reason, I have even less trust in our state legislators doing the right thing. Heaven help us.

[Frozen Sooner]

DOMA is federal law. Part of DOMA says that pursuant to Congress' power to regulate how states are required to give full faith and credit to the acts of other states, Congress is giving states the right to refuse honoring marriages granted by other states that are offensive to the public morals.

I really need to get a clearer picture of the facts in this case.

[Okla-homey]

I really need to get a clearer picture of the facts in this case.

I bet the now fallen fireman had precisely the same thought on the wedding night.

[oudivesherpa]

Living in Houston, the judge has frozen the assets of both sides until he can make a final decision. However, the wife claims "she" was born with a "birth defect" which gave her incompelte sexual organs, and appeared more male than female. So far DNA test has not been made public to see if she is and X or a Y. The most explicit details have not been published.

http://www.myfoxhouston.com/dpp/news/local/100727-transgender-drama-seeps-into-courtroom

[Soonerfan88]

I still don't understand how mom thinks she is entitled to monies earned by the 'widow' no matter what gender, legal or otherwise, s/he is. Can the lawyers please explain that one to me?


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 principal wage earner of the couple.

[Okla-homey]

I still don't understand how mom thinks she is entitled to monies earned by the 'widow' no matter what gender, legal or otherwise, s/he is. Can the lawyers please explain that one to me?

If they were'nt married pursuant to Texas law, which requires a man and a women to marry, the "marriage" is a nullity. In this case, mama claims they weren't married according to Texas law because the bride was a d00d. Therefore, his heir is his mama. Therefore, absent a will to the contrary, all $$$ to mama. Got it?

[Ike]

If they were'nt married pursuant to Texas law, which requires a man and a women to marry, the "marriage" is a nullity. In this case, mama claims they weren't married according to Texas law because the bride was a d00d. Therefore, his heir is his mama. Therefore, absent a will to the contrary, all $$$ to mama. Got it?

But wouldn't that also mean that there was no such thing as joint property?