Sometimes divorce can be a real pissing contest.
Listen to this report from the Denver Post:
When his wife needed a kidney transplant, Richard Batista gave her one of his, attorney Dominic Barbara said.
Now that Dawnell Batista has filed for a divorce, Richard Batista wants his kidney back as part of his settlement demand. Or, Barbara said Wednesday, his client wants the value of that kidney: an estimated $1.5 million.
The case is pending before the New York Supreme Court in Mineola, N.Y.
Legal experts say that Batista doesn’t stand a chance in Hades of winning the case because the law prohibits the purchase and sale of body organs.
But Mr. Batista isn’t claiming he sold his kidney to his wife. He is merely saying that the fact that he gave it to her should be considered by the Court in dividing their marital property.
What do you think?
Shouldn’t Batista be remunerated for his loss? Didn’t he give the kidney, at least partially, in exchange for the implied promise that the marriage would continue?
Barbara said the $1.5 million his client feels he’s entitled to reflects damages, including how much money she made as a result of being able to continue working and not having to go on dialysis. “A price can’t be placed on a human organ but it does have value,” he said.
Tongue-in-Cheek Questions:
- If the Court rules in Batista’s favor, will the IRS step in and start taxing people who receive organ transplants on the basis that they can be valued?
- Then again, if the transplantee had income from receiving the new kidney, wouldn’t she also have a deductible expense for the loss of the old one?
- Then again, again, if the old one was defective, wouldn’t it’s value be much less than the good kidney the transplantee got in exchange for it? Wouldn’t she then have to recognize a gain on transplantation?
1 response so far ↓
1 Kirk Ward // Jan 20, 2009 at 4:33 pm
Jesus, Mary, Joseph! These two are pretty p.o.’d at each other it seems.
IMHO Mr. Batista surrendered all rights to the property (okay, I’m going with the flow) when he made a gift to a very dear and beloved person, with whom he later had a parting of the ways.
He cannot rescind the gift if he did not make any provision for said rescinding prior to the time the gift was made.
So, seeing as the property (again, jeez) was received by Mrs. Batista as a gift, Mr. Batista has no claim to any value from it as most states exempt property received by gift or other device from marital property.
Jeez, what a doofus.
Leave a Comment