Jennifer Tobits Wants Her Deceased Wife’s Benefits, But DOMA Says “Nuh-Uh, Gurl”
Sarah Ellyn Farley and Jennifer Tobits got married in Toronto in 2006. But when Farley succumbed to cancer, Tobit found herself in a battle with Farley’s parents for her partner’s profit-sharing benefits. You see, the proceeds of the profit-sharing plan that Farley enrolled in with her law-firm would normally go to her wife. But Farley’s parents, represented by the anti-gay Thomas More Society, say that the Defense of Marriage Act and Pennsylvania law basically invalidate their union. Furthermore they claim that the beneficiary paperwork listed Ellyn as single and left all that sweet lucre to Farley’s mom and pop. Will yet another gay spouse get screwed over by DOMA and scheming parents or did Sarah truly not want her wife to touch a dime of her money?
The Thomas More Society, representing the parents, responded to Cozen O’Connor’s interpleader action in federal court, stating that federal and state DOMAs forbid the recognition of Tobits as a “spouse” and that the law firm should disburse the profit-sharing plan proceeds to the parents, in accord with the wishes of the deceased.
Thomas More Society attorneys argue that the parents are entitled to the funds because their daughter executed a beneficiary designation form in their favor before her death, and because Farley and Tobits’ “marriage” was invalid under Federal and Pennsylvania law. Under the terms of the profit-sharing plan, the parents would be next in line when there is no spouse, even without a designated beneficiary form from the deceased. Therefore, they are legally entitled to the funds as Farley’s surviving parents on two accounts.
The larger question remains: why would Sarah represent her marital status as “single” and designated her parents as her plan beneficiaries with a wife in tow? Are shenanigans afoot? Did the parents persuade their dying daughter to sign over the dough or did the lesbian spouses have less love between them than meets the eye?
The plot thickens…
As unfortunate as these episodes are, it is these stories of injustice that will be DOMA’s downfall.
My condolences to Mrs. Tobits.
·
Under some state’s laws, a married person cannot unilaterally and/or secretly execute instruments that deny their spouse inheritance. Such instruments are treated as void and the surviving spouse may elect to take a statutory percentage. Of course, a spouse may always knowingly and voluntarily disclaim their rightful share entirely or conditionally, as in a prenup.
I’m not suggesting that’s the case under this state’s statutes, but it would create an issue in equity if not in law. In other words, the law should not permit A to derive all the benefits of contract (even an invalid one) to B, while denying all the benefits of the same contract to B by arguing that the contract was invalid.
·
My condolences Mrs. Tobits. Apparently, this DOMA thing wont be applicable to our married friends from the LGBT community. I just hope that after the successful unbanning of same-sex marriage in NYC, the ammendment of DOMA follows suit.
Social Networking Site for Same-Sex Wedding Registry
http://www.weddingpride.com
·
@christopher di spirito: You can’t be serious… Right?
·
Good grief, Queerty. Don’t you think you could have found another picture to go with this article?
·
@Matt:
Why not? It was Obama who insisted he could walk and chew gum at the same time.
If the president sees that laws violating the Constitution are being used to oppress a citizen minority, he’s bound by his oath of office to act.
Not evolve. Act.
·
@The crustybastard: My issue was more with the “top priority” aspect of the comment. I (obviously) care deeply about gay rights, but I still can’t argue that getting rid of DADT and DOMA is more important than, say, trying to right the economy.
·
DADT and DOMA should’ve been Obama’s top priority his first year as president but he squandered his first 365 days on Obamacare, proving he had no template for LGBT equality.