James F. McDonough
Of Counsel
732-568-8360 jmcdonough@sh-law.comFirm Insights
A Non-Traditional Trust Issue: Gender Reassignment
Author: James F. McDonough
Date: July 17, 2013
Key Contacts
Back
Occasionally, cases present fact patterns that were unanticipated at the time I was in law school. Today, however, a person’s ability to anticipate these situations is guided by the dramatic changes in medicine and reproductive technology. In Burnett v. Burnett, a guardian filed a divorce action on behalf of the ward for the primary purpose of Medicaid planning. The Michigan court was faced with two non-traditional trust issues raised by the Guardian.
The facts are that a traditional couple was married in the 1980s. One spouse underwent gender reassignment surgery in 2003. The State of Michigan did not recognize same-sex marriages in 2003, so a question arose as to whether the reassignment surgery operated to end the marriage. The Court held that the sexual reassignment did not invalidate the marriage. The reason the action was filed was to obtain a divorce in order to preserve assets. The court held that the Guardian had the authority to file an action for divorce and that Medicaid planning was a valid reason.
One issue that was not part of the case before the Michigan court was whether the reassigned partner could remain a beneficiary of a hypothetical trust. Most trusts that are funded and operating today were probably drafted before advances in reproductive and reassignment. Most trusts provide for children, grandchildren and occasionally for their spouses. Many trusts require that the in-law remain legally married to the descendant to continue as an eligible beneficiary. Suppose the sexually reassigned partner was a son-in-law or daughter-in-law. Would customary language exclude this person as a beneficiary because the marriage is no longer recognized under state law?
What does a trustee do when presented with these facts? Does the trustee seek to limit its liability from claims of other beneficiaries by taking the position that the couple is no longer married under the terms of the trust or state law? What would the outcome be if the couple and the trust resided in different states with the law of each jurisdiction being different?
- Practices: Tax and Trusts & Estates
- Locations: Red Bank, NJ, New York City, Little Falls, NJ
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Related Posts
See all
Why Compliance Monitoring Matters for NY and NJ Businesses
Compliance programs are no longer judged by how they look on paper, but by how they function in the real world. Compliance monitoring is the ongoing process of reviewing, testing, and evaluating whether policies, procedures, and controls are being followed—and whether they are actually working. What Is Compliance Monitoring? In today’s heightened regulatory environment, compliance […]
Author: Dan Brecher
When Are New Jersey Business Owners Personally Liable for Corporate Debt?
New Jersey personal guaranty liability is a critical issue for business owners who regularly sign contracts on behalf of their companies. A recent New Jersey Supreme Court decision provides valuable guidance on when a business owner can be held personally responsible for a company’s debt. Under the Court’s decision in Extech Building Materials, Inc. v. […]
Author: Charles H. Friedrich
Commercial Real Estate Trends to Watch in 2026
Commercial real estate trends in 2026 are being shaped by shifting economic conditions, technological innovation, and evolving tenant demands. As the market adjusts to changing interest rates, capital flows, and workplace models, investors, owners, tenants, and developers must understand how these trends are influencing opportunities and risk in the year ahead. Overall Outlook for Commercial […]
Author: Michael J. Willner
One Big Beautiful Bill: New Tip Income Tax Rules Employers & Workers Need to Know
Part 2 – Tips Excluded from Income Certain employees and independent contractors may be eligible to deduct tips from their income for tax years 2025 through 2028 under provisions included in the One Big Beautiful Bill. The deduction is capped at $25,000 per year and begins to phase out at $150,000 of modified adjusted gross […]
Author: Scott H. Novak
One Big Beautiful Bill: New Overtime Tax Rules Employers and Employees Need to Know
Part 1 – Overtime Pay and Income Tax Treatment Overview This Firm Insights post summarizes one provision of the “One Big Beautiful Bill” related to the tax treatment of overtime compensation and related employer wage reporting obligations. Overtime Pay and Employee Tax Treatment The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) generally requires that overtime be paid […]
Author: Scott H. Novak
New York’s FAIR Business Practices Act: What the New Consumer Protection Measure Means for Your Business
In 2025, New York enacted one of the most consequential updates to its consumer protection framework in decades. The Fostering Affordability and Integrity through Reasonable Business Practices Act (FAIR Act) significantly expands the scope and strength of New York’s long-standing consumer protection statute, General Business Law § 349, and alters the compliance landscape for New York […]
Author: Dan Brecher
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Sign up to get the latest from our attorneys!
Explore What Matters Most to You.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.