Quote:
Originally Posted by HowSoonIsNow
The SOLE reason her assets/benefits are frozen is because she is trans.
This case is built on that. If that didn't exist, the in-laws would not have no basis for a legal challenge.
It is not just another case of inheritance dispute based on in-fighting--it is entirely based on her transsexed history.
|
I get what you're saying, but this is my point:
The husband's parents don't want her to inherit (clearly), so they have challenged her right to the estate.
Anyone can challenge an estate, for a whole variety of reasons.
If Nikki wasn't trans, they could challenge her right to inherit based on a variety of other grounds. They may not be true or fair or right, but they can do it - and the assets would be frozen until the case was decided.
Clearly, they are taking the fact that she is trans as their reason to challenge - and yes, that sucks.
We don't know the family or her. As much as we may feel sympathetic to her situation (and I do), we really don't know all the details of the relationships and history of this family.
It sounds like, from Dylan's post, what needs to change in Texas is legislation to prevent judges from being arbitrary in cases involving trans people.