## Facts

- Marshall G. Gardiner, a Kansas resident, died intestate in 1999.
- In 1998, Marshall (biologically male) married J’Noel Gardiner in Kansas; Marshall knew J’Noel had transitioned.
- J’Noel was assigned male at birth and later underwent male-to-female sex-reassignment surgery.
- After transition, J’Noel lived as female and obtained identification documents reflecting female status.
- Joseph Gardiner, Marshall’s adult son from a prior marriage, petitioned to administer the estate and claimed he was the sole heir because the marriage was void.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Joseph, ruling Kansas law did not recognize a marriage between two males.
- The Kansas Court of Appeals reversed and ordered further evidentiary development on J’Noel’s sex.
- The Kansas Supreme Court granted review.

## Issues

1. Whether a post-operative male-to-female transsexual is a “woman” for purposes of Kansas marriage statutes requiring parties to be of opposite sex.
2. Whether Kansas public policy and statutes limited valid marriage to a biological man and a biological woman, rendering the marriage void.
3. Whether summary judgment was proper or whether a material fact dispute existed regarding J’Noel’s sex for marriage validity and intestate succession.

## Decision

- The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s judgment that the marriage was void and reversed the Court of Appeals to the extent it required further fact development.
- The court held that, for Kansas marriage statutes, “female” meant biological female determined at birth; a post-operative male-to-female transsexual did not qualify.
- Because the attempted marriage was not between persons of opposite sex as defined by Kansas law and policy, J’Noel was not a surviving spouse for intestate inheritance.
- Summary judgment was proper because the dispositive question was statutory interpretation and the relevant facts (assigned sex at birth and subsequent surgery) were not genuinely disputed.

## Legal Principles

- Statutory terms in common usage are construed according to their natural and ordinary meaning, and legislative intent controls.
- Courts apply statutes as written and do not add coverage beyond the statutory wording based on policy preferences.
- Under Kansas law as applied, valid marriage required parties of opposite sex, understood as a biological man and a biological woman.
- A marriage that does not satisfy the opposite-sex requirement is void as against Kansas public policy and confers no spousal status for intestate succession.
- Summary judgment is appropriate when material facts are not disputed and the outcome turns on a question of law.

## Conclusion

Kansas construed “male,” “female,” and “opposite sex” in its marriage statutes to refer to biological sex at birth, held the marriage between Marshall and J’Noel void, and denied J’Noel surviving-spouse inheritance rights under intestacy.


In re Estate of Gardiner, 42 P.3d 120 (Kan. 2002)