## Facts

- Marshall G. Gardiner, a Kansas resident, married J’Noel Gardiner in Kansas in September 1998 and died intestate in August 1999.
- J’Noel was designated male at birth (Jay N. Ball) and later underwent medical transition, including hormone therapy and sex-reassignment surgery; a physician stated she should be regarded as a “functional anatomical female.”
- After surgery, a Wisconsin court ordered issuance of a new birth certificate listing J’Noel as female, and she updated other identification documents to reflect female sex and her name.
- Marshall’s adult son, Joseph M. Gardiner III, petitioned to determine heirship, asserting the marriage was void under Kansas law because J’Noel was born male and Kansas recognized only marriages between “a man and a woman.”
- The district court granted summary judgment to Joseph, declared the marriage void as against Kansas law and public policy, and denied J’Noel’s motion for partial summary judgment.

## Issues

1. Whether Kansas marriage statutes limiting marriage to “a man and a woman” required treating a post-operative male-to-female transsexual spouse as male, thereby rendering the marriage void.
2. Whether J’Noel’s medical transition and out-of-state legal recognition as female created material factual or legal questions precluding summary judgment on marital validity and heirship.
3. What weight, if any, Kansas should give to an out-of-state court order and amended birth certificate recognizing a change of sex when evaluating the validity of a Kansas marriage.

## Decision

- The Kansas Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Joseph and remanded for further proceedings.
- The court held the matter could not be resolved by a categorical rule declaring the marriage void as a matter of Kansas public policy on the existing record.
- The court concluded that material legal and factual questions remained regarding how “sex,” “man,” and “woman” applied to a post-operative transsexual person with updated legal documents.

## Legal Principles

- Summary judgment is improper when genuine issues of material fact or contested legal applications remain; the movant must be entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
- Statutory terms such as “man” and “woman” may present difficult applications when medical evidence and governmental records indicate a reassigned sex, making categorical treatment unsuitable at the summary-judgment stage.
- Out-of-state judicial determinations and amended vital records recognizing a change of sex can be relevant to assessing a person’s legal status and may require careful consideration rather than being disregarded outright.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeals held that the validity of Marshall and J’Noel Gardiner’s marriage, and thus J’Noel’s potential status as a surviving spouse for intestate succession, could not be decided summarily by treating her birth designation as conclusive; the case required further proceedings to address the factual record and the proper application of Kansas marriage law.


In re Estate of Gardiner, 22 P.3d 1086 (Kan. Ct. App. 2001)