Maryland Divorce Lawyer Blog

The Maryland House Judiciary Committee has rejected a bill proposed by Delegate Emmett C. Burns, a Democrat from Baltimore County, that would prohibit the state from recognizing same-sex marriages lawfully performed in other states. The proposal "was seen as a pre-emptive strike against a legal opinion that state Attorney General Douglas F. Gansler has been working on since a senator requested it last year." The Attorney General has been known to favor legislation favoring same-sex marriages, but such legislation has not made it out of the committee. Despite attempted efforts to permit gay marriage, Maryland law still prohibits it. Maryland Code, Family Law 2-201 states that, “[o]nly a marriage between a man and a woman is valid in this State.” This issue has possible ramifications in custody and visitation between same-sex partners as explored in our November 27, 2009 blog.

The state of the current economy has left many of my clients trapped in a house with their current spouse, limiting their ability to file for an absolute divorce based on a one year separation (For more information on no fault divorce see our August 15, 2010 blog). The Baltimore Sun has reported that Montgomery County Delegate Luiz Simmons is fighting to change the necessity of actually living under separate roofs fro teh one yaer period. He is arguing that instead of having parties live separate and apart for one year, parties should just have to abstain from sex for one year. This would allow for couples in a financial predicament to remain in the same home while seeking a divorce. Many are protesting the proposal as it may make divorces more prominent in the state of Maryland. Delegate Simmon’s proposed bill states that the parties would need to testify that they have not resumed marital relations for one year. Currently, parties seeking a no fault divorce based on a one year separation must bring a witness who can confirm, amoung other things, that the parties have lived separate and apart for one year.

Continue reading "Maryland Delegate Proposes “No Sex” Divorce" »

The short answer is, they do not. Martial property is defined as “the property, however titled, acquired by 1 or both parties during the marriage.” Maryland Code, Family Law § 8-201(3). This includes a marital business acquired by one or both of the parties during the marriage. For more information on marital property division during a divorce proceeding see our Marital Property Blog from August 19, 2009 . Many times the issue of how to solve the 'division' of a martial business in a divorce proceeding is a complicated one due to stock ownership, the value of the business, and consideration of employees of the business.

In accordance with Maryland Code, Family Law § 8-202 (b) when the court determines the ownership of personal or real property, the court may: (1) grant a decree that states what the ownership interest of each party is; and (2) as to any property owned by both of the parties, order a partition or a sale instead of partition and a division of the proceeds. A business is not real or personal property and due to how the stock of the company is held, a sale of the business may not always be a viable option. In the recent case of Turner v. Turner, 147 Md. App. 350 (2002) the Court of Special Appeals found that they could not order sale of the marital business or partition (divide) the marital business, awarding wife 50% of the business, because the husband owned 87% of the shares of stock in the company and Wife owned the remaining shares. The court does not have the authority to re-title stock and does not have the authority to sell it. Therefore in Turner, the court awarded the wife a larger percentage of the parties total value of marital property (a monetary award). What this means is that when a marital business is an issue and stock is held by both husband and wife, but titled individually, in addition to divorce proceedings, an action to dissolve the corporation may also be necessary if parties are unable or unwilling to continue to work/ run the business together.

Continue reading "How Do Courts Divide a Marital Business in a Maryland Divorce" »

The Maryland Court of Appeal issued an opinion in Curtis O. Rosemann v. Salsbury, Clements, Bekman, Marder & Adkins, LLC on January 13, 2010 stating that funds received as a part of a settlement in personal injury case are exempt from being executed for a judgment of child support arrearages. Mr. Rosemann, the father and primary custodial parent of two minor children sought to garnish funds received from his ex-wife in a personal injury lawsuit after she failed to pay her child support. Mr. Rosemann’s battle began in 2001 when he obtained two judgments in the Circuit Court for Howard County against his ex-wife for child support arrearages totaling over $33,000.00. Ms. Rosemann and her attorneys were awarded $30,000.00 from America West Airlines in a personal injury lawsuit after being injured while on an America West flight. After learning of this settlement, Mr. Rosemann attempted to garnish the account that held Ms. Rosemann’s share of the settlement.

The Circuit Court found, and the Court of Special Appeals affirmed that the funds were exempt from execution on judgment in accordance with Maryland Code, Courts and Judicial Proceedings § 11-504(b)(2), which states the following: (b) The following items are exempt from execution on a judgment: (2) Money payable in the event of sickness, accident, injury, or death of any person, including compensation for loss of future earnings. This exemption includes but is not limited to money payable on account of judgments, arbitrations, compromises, insurance, benefits, compensation, and relief. Disability income benefits are not exempt if the judgment is for necessities contracted for after the disability is incurred.

Continue reading "Maryland Court of Appeals Finds that Compensation for Personal Injury is Exempt from Child Support Judgment" »

Maryland’s second highest court filed an opinion in the case of Guzman Cruz v. Clemencia Silva on November 25, 2009, which held that a spouse can be awarded alimony absent a divorce. The idea of alimony disconnected from a divorce, although a strange scenario for most to imagine, has long been a reality in Maryland. For more information regarding alimony see our October 2, 2009 and October 13, 2009 blog posts.

The Cruz’s came to the Circuit Court for Princes George’s County on January 9, 2008, both seeking a divorce but did not prove legally sufficient grounds for the divorce. However, the Judge awarded custody of the two minor children to Clemencia, ordered Guzman to pay her $764.00 per month in child support, and $1,500.00 per month in alimony. Guzman appealed to the Court of Special Appeals contending that the trial court erred in awarding alimony to Clemencia without granting a divorce and without properly determining the type and amount of alimony. The Court stated that Maryland has long recognized that the common law obligation of alimony was the obligation of husband to provide support to wife (or wife to husband). This is evidenced by Maryland Code, Family Law Section 11-101(a)(1), which provides that a court may award alimony not only in a decree of divorce, but also in a bill of complaint for alimony. The Court of Special Appeals held that while a spouse can be awarded alimony absent a divorce, that in this case the award was an error as a spouse still has to prove a case that would entitle him or her to alimony.

Continue reading "Recent Maryland Court of Special Appeals Ruling on Alimony" »

When disclosing or researching your marital property in a Maryland divorce action, it is important that clients are informed that any portion of a retirement account accrued during the marriage is marital property. For more information on marital property in Maryland, see Maryland Code, Family Law 8-203 and see August 19, 2009 blog. The courts in Maryland have the authority to transfer any percentage of the martial portion of the retirement account whether it be a pension, profit sharing plan, deferred compensation plan, thrift savings account, 401k or IRA from one spouse to the other, Maryland Code, Family Law §8-205. The court may apply one of several methods when valuing the marital portion of the retirement account, all of which an attorney would be able to advise you.

In order for a portion of the retirement benefit to be transferred a Qualified Domestic Relations Order, otherwise known as a QDRO, must be signed by a Judge and submitted to the plan administrator. The QDRO is an order by the court to modify the payee of all or a portion of the retirement plan. Each plan administrator may require a different type of QDRO and QDRO’s must comply with the ERISA (The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) laws, so it may be important to hire an attorney to assist you in this drafting process.

With the holidays approaching many parents in divided households may be facing uncertainty or conflicts as to where their child(ren) will be spending the holiday. The Maryland Court system in years past has implemented specific instructions for what is known as “holiday court,” or the process that takes place in order to resolve these holiday access disputes. We have collected information from a few of the surrounding venues to find out how they will be handling this year’s (2009) holiday disputes.

Baltimore County Circuit Court
Baltimore County Circuit Court will consider holiday visitation disputes from November 23, 2009-December 19, 2009, and all disputes shall be submitted to Judge Dugan, who will assign each matter to a particular Judge on a rotating basis. When the case is assigned to the Judge who will hear the holiday dispute, the party should contact the Judge’s chambers with the name and contact information for all parties involved, the details of any efforts to reach an agreement between the parties, what relief each party is requesting, and what each party is proposing the holiday access schedule be.

Baltimore City Circuit Court
Baltimore City Circuit Court is hearing holiday visitation issues on December 8, 2009 and December 17, 2009 in front of Master Kelly. All requests for a holiday visitation hearing should be filed with the clerk’s office with a copy sent to the Family Law Coordinator as well.

Harford County Circuit Court
Harford County Circuit Court will forward all pleadings involving holiday disputes to the Family Law Coordinator, who will set the dispute in for a hearing either before a Judge or Master.

Continue reading "Holiday Disputes in Maryland Custody and Visitation Matters" »

The Daily Record reports that the Maryland Court of Special Appeals has decided to vacate the Baltimore County Circuit Court’s decision to allow Larissa S. to visit with her ex-partner Melissa B.’s eight year old son. The couple dated for seven years, before deciding to have a child in 2001, through the help of a friend. After the couple broke up in 2002, Melissa gave birth to a second child. Larissa never adopted either child, but visited with both boys from 2002-2005 until she was denied access, which triggered her to file for visitation rights.

The Baltimore County Circuit Court, namely Judge Daniels, after much back and forth with Maryland’s higher court, found that the third party exceptional circumstances standard was met in this case, and therefore, ordered that there should be visitation between Larissa and the eldest child. For more information regarding third party custody and the exceptional circumstances standard see the August 11, 2009 blog. The Court of Special Appeals found that the lower court erred in finding exceptional circumstances because the Judge improperly refused to hear evidence from Melissa about the potential effects that this visitation with Larissa could have on her eldest son. Such new evidence could include the time that Larissa has been absent from the child’s life, due to this ongoing litigation. The case will return to Baltimore County Circuit Court where a judge will have to listen to all evidence to determine whether exceptional circumstances exist to order visitation between Larissa and the child.

Clients often ask if their soon to be ex-spouse, ex-spouse or co-parent of their child(ren) will be able to change a custody order after it is entered at their free will whenever they want to? The answer is that the other parent may file with the Court to modify the existing order at anytime. Meeting the two-prong test required to change and/or modify custody is however not an easy task. First, the moving party must show a material change in circumstances. That begs the question, what is a material change in circumstance? There are a number of cases which assist us in defining it, but generally speaking it is one or a combination of the following: a significant change that occurred since the entry of the initial order; something material that was unknown at the time the initial order was passed has since come to light; and/or something since the entry of the Order is adversely impacting or could adversely impact the welfare of the child(ren). One circumstance that has been ruled a material change in Maryland is the relocation of a parent. Braun v. Headley, 131 Md. App. 588 (2000). When facing relocation of a parent, the court may consider such factors as a potential change in visitation schedule, child’s school change, the moving parent’s reason for the move, and the ability of the parents to both maintain a relationship with the child after the move when deciding whether or not the move will constitute a material change in circumstances. More often than not, a relocation of a parent is a material change in circumstance. Assuming the parent seeking to modify the existing Order establishes a material change in circumstance and the Court so finds, the second prong of the two prong test is what is in the best interest of the minor child(ren). In deciding what is in the best interest of the child(ren) the court considers a host of factors. Some of those factors include the fitness of the parents, the desires and agreements of the parents, the potential to maintain family relationships, the child’s preference if he or she is at a sufficient age, opportunities affecting the child, the age and health of the child, and the residence of the parents and opportunity for visitation. Montgomery County v. Sanders, 38 Md. App. 406 (1997). It is important to keep in mind that even with a finding of a material change in circumstance, a modification of the custody order still must be determined by the court to be in the child(ren)'s best interest.

Continue reading "Modification of Child Custody in Maryland" »

Many clients incorrectly assume that mothers are favored over fathers in a custody case. The truth is that the “tender years doctrine,” has been abolished in all fifty states as it violates constitutional law. This doctrine, which is what many clients are relying on when assuming that a mother may be favored over a father, stated that young children should be placed with their mother unless she was unfit. Since the abolishment of this doctrine in Maryland, neither parent is given preference for custody based on exclusively their gender.

In Maryland, the standard that is used when determining custody of a child is the “best interest standard.” This is a standard in which Judges consider a number of factors such as the parents fitness, relationship of child and parents, children’s current environment, ability to maintain natural family relationships, who has been the primary care giver, wishes of child in some circumstances, any agreement the parents have made, prior abandonment of a child by a parent, the age and health of the child, and many, many other factors to determine what custody arrangement would be in the best interest of the child.

I have been on both sides of a custody battle, having represented both Mom's and Dad's and have prevailed in obtaining custody for both genders. Every case is different and has its own nuances, but I am of the opinion, that assuming both parents are fit and absent some extraordinary circumstance such as mental illness, physical /mental abuse, abandonement, and/or manipluation, Courts generally focus on who has been the primary care giver (oftentimes the responsibilities have been shared), stability of the parents and their living situationas and environment, parental and other familial involvement, the ability of each parent to work and communicate with the other like adults on child related issues, and the availability of each parent for the child(ren). Obviously, this is a generalization and each case is different, but I believe those factors hold considerable weight with most Judges. Oftentimes judicial custody determinations will hinge on one particular issue because the parties are otherwise relatively on the same playing field in the other factors. Rest assured however, the tender years doctrine has been abolished and Mothers and Fathers stand on equal legal footing as far as gender is concerned.

Continue reading "Maryland Custody: Are Mom’s Favored over Dad’s?" »

If the respondent (alleged abuser) in a protective order proceeding has a protective order entered against them, what are the petitioner’s (alleged victim of abuse) options if the respondent violates the order? A violation of the protective order is any action the respondent takes that violates the provisions the judge ordered at the time of the hearing (no contact, no abuse, no harassment, emergency family maintenance, drug/alcohol/anger counseling). This violation can occur in an interim, temporary or final protective order situation (see August 16, 2009 blog for more information on types of protective orders).

Although the protective order is civil in nature, the violations of certain safety provisions of the order are considered criminal violations. If the respondent violates the provisions of the protective order that order no contact, no harassment, no abuse, the petitioner has the option of calling the police, or filing charges on their own. If the police witness the violation or have enough evidence to believe the violation occurred, they have the authority to arrest the respondent. The petitioner also has the option of filing criminal charges with the commissioner. A conviction for a violation of a protective order can result in imprisonment and/or fining of the respondent. Specifically, for a first offense, a fine is not to exceed $1,000.00 and imprisonment is not to exceed 90 days, and for a second or subsequent offense, a fine is not to exceed $2,500.00 and imprisonment is not to exceed one year.

Continue reading "Alleged Violations of Protective Orders in Maryland: Criminal and Civil Consequences" »

Divorce is a civil proceeding and therefore like all civil proceedings, the action shall be brought in the county or city where the Defendant (opposing spouse) resides, carries on a regular business, is employed, or habitually engages. However, unlike other civil proceedings a divorce proceeding may additionally be filed where the Plaintiff (spouse filing for the divorce) resides. In addition civil actions regarding custody may be filed where the father, alleged father, mother or child resides. Maryland Code, Courts and Judicial Proceedings, 6-202.

Although this may seem like a simple concept, filing in the wrong county/city, may subject your case to removal to another county upon a motion because of “inappropriate venue.” This may and most likely will cause a delay to your proceeding and will cause you to incur additional attorney fees. Additionally, you should keep in mind that if the grounds for divorce occur in Maryland, one of the parties must be a domiciliary of Maryland and if the grounds for divorce occur outside of Maryland, one of the parties must have resided in Maryland for at least one year prior to the filing of the action for divorce. Maryland Code, Family Law, 7-101.

Continue reading "In What County or City Should Your Maryland Divorce Be Filed?" »