Marital Property

Published on: July 12, 2023

Updates to Maryland Divorce Grounds Coming in October 2023

If you are considering filing for divorce in Maryland, your filing must include the grounds, or basis, for the divorce. Beginning this fall, selecting the grounds when filing for divorce will become an easier determination. During the 2023 Legislative Session, the General Assembly passed bills eliminating limited divorce in Maryland and changing the grounds available for an absolute divorce. On May 16, 2023, Governor Moore signed Senate Bill 36,which was cross-filed with House Bill 14, into law. The new version of Md. Code, Family Law § 7-103 will become effective on October 1, 2023, and will apply to all divorce cases filed on or after that date.

Current Law through September 20, 2023

Maryland law currently provides for two different types of divorce: limited divorce and absolute divorce. An absolute divorce is a permanent end to the marriage. An absolute divorce severs all legal ties between the parties and allows the parties to resume use of a former name or remarry if they choose. In contrast, a limited divorce does not end the marriage. A limited divorce allows a person who does not satisfy the grounds for absolute divorce and cannot reach an agreement with their spouse to ask the court to order temporary relief regarding child custody, child support, alimony, and use of real or personal property. Because a limited divorce is not a permanent end to the marriage, the court may revoke a limited divorce at any time if both spouses jointly request that the limited divorce be revoked. The differences between these two types of divorce and the grounds for each are explained in more detail in Common Questions about Divorce in Maryland.

Continue reading →

Published on: July 3, 2023

What Happens to Jointly Titled Marital Maryland Real Property in a Divorce?

By Monica Scherer

In Maryland

Ideally, parties in a divorce proceeding work cooperatively to determine and divide their marital real property and reduce the terms to what will become a portion of a written marital settlement agreement. By proceeding in this fashion, the parties can agree on who has title to the real property owned, who will retain the title to real property, and then work to effectuate the transfer or retention of the same. Even if one party has already formally instituted divorce proceedings in a Maryland court, it is important to remember that the possibility of reaching an agreement is always available and can often be the best vehicle for a quicker and more affordable way to a final divorce.

If an amicable resolution is not a possibility, then the parties will leave the fate of their real property to a Maryland court. If a piece of real property is both marital and titled jointly a court can order use and possession (depending on custody of minor children), order the property to be sold or pursuant to the Maryland Annotated Code, Family Law § 8-205:

Continue reading →

Published on: January 26, 2021

“Separation” anxiety? What you need to know about preparing for a divorce in Maryland

By Monica Scherer

Please join our family law department chair and senior partner, Monica Scherer for a Zoom session on February 4, 2021 at 5:00 p.m. She will discuss the basics of divorce and how to start getting prepared for what lies ahead. Please feel free to submit general questions in advance which Monica will answer during the session. Each session is approximately one hour. The fee is $100.00 and can be paid through our website www.silvermanthompson.com . Once payment and the completed intake form are received, you will receive a Zoom link for the session.

Intake and Payment Forms

Please be advised an attorney-client relationship is NOT created by participation in this informational session.

Published on: May 5, 2020

Common Questions about Divorce in Maryland

By Monica Scherer

What is an Absolute Divorce?

The effect of Maryland’s absolute divorce is parallel to a traditional divorce; it is the final termination of the marriage. In an absolute divorce, custody, visitation, and child support terms between both parties are set, both parties are granted the right to live separately and apart, a legal name change may be granted (the resumption of a former name), and even remarry if they choose. An absolute divorce also allows the court to decide on matters regarding alimony and marital property, including any division of assets, transfer of retirement interests, and any other equitable distribution of real property, personal property and pension/retirement assets acquired during the course of the marriage. Ultimately, both parties are granted the right to sever all legal and financial ties from one another.

What are the grounds for divorce in Maryland?

Continue reading →

Published on: April 7, 2020

Should I try mediation to resolve my family law matter with COVID-19 court closures?

By Monica Scherer

Another unfortunate consequence of COVID-19 is the postponement of the pendente lite hearings, settlement conferences and merit trials which were actually scheduled on the court docket months ago, but are not going forward as planned due to the court closures. Thus far, my experience has been that the courts are working hard to get the postponed cases reset as quickly as possible. Unfortunately, I have already had several client matters get reset only to be postponed and reset yet again as a result of the Administrative Order to extend the court closures. As a litigant, this can be extremely frustrating especially when the access to/custody of your children and finances remain uncertain.

Mediation remains an option to consider bringing temporary or complete closure to your family law matter. Mediation has the capability of being conducted via video conferencing with a trained mediator or retired Judge which will ensure all parties, counsel and the mediator remain in compliance with CDC recommendations and Governor Hogan’s Orders while we all weather this crisis. The upside to successful mediation is you have some or complete closure now versus months from now when your matter is finally set back in to be heard by the Court. Mediation does not work in every case, but given these uncertain and challenging times, it may be worth considering as an option.

Published on: November 22, 2019

Federal Government Pension Orders – be mindful of what was ordered by the Court

By Monica Scherer

The U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Part 838.103 provides “Self-only annuity means the recurring unreduced payments under CSRS or FERS to a retiree with no survivor annuity payable to anyone. Self-only annuity also includes the recurring unreduced phased retirement annuity payments under CSRS or FERS to a phased retiree before any other deduction. Unless the court order expressly provides otherwise, self-only annuity also includes any lump-sum payments made to the retiree under 5 U.S.C. 8343a or 8420a.” While the Gross annuity “means the amount of monthly annuity payable to a retiree or phased retiree after reducing the self-only annuity to provide survivor annuity benefits, if any, but before any other deduction. Unless the court order expressly provides otherwise, gross annuity also includes any lump-sum payments made to the retiree under 5 U.S.C. 8343a or 8420a”. The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) will apply the martial share formula to the gross annuity UNLESS the Order states otherwise, see U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Part 838.306 (b) which states “the standard types of annuity to which OPM can apply the formula, percentage, or fraction are phased retirement annuity of a phased retiree, or net annuity, gross annuity, or self-only annuity of a retiree. Unless the court order otherwise directs, OPM will apply to gross annuity the formula, percentage, or fraction directed at annuity payable to either a retiree or a phased retiree.” Gross Annuity is the default.

For more information on Maryland divorce and retirement matters contact an experienced divorce attorney.

Published on: February 24, 2012

Maryland Senate Passes Same Sex Marriage Bill

By Monica Scherer

As the Baltimore Sun reports, Thursday night, February 23, 2012, the Maryland Senate passed Govern Martin O’Malleys’ bill to legalize same-sex marriage in Maryland. We blogged on June 28, 2011 that New York had passed the law allowing same sex couples to wed, making it the 6th state to do so. Maryland is now the 8th state to approve same sex marriages. While it is a victory for supporters of the bill, many believe that the law will likely be up to the voters in November. If the law is passed by the voters, it will be effective in January 2013.

As expected the church has voiced their disapproval of the bill’s passing. The Maryland Daily Record reports that Baltimore’s Cardinal O’Brien states that the bill “threatens families.” He has pledged that the Baltimore Archdiocese will work to overturn the law and likely will be a key proponent in making sure the voters have a say in November.

We discussed the potential of this bill passing last February and discussed the changes we may see in the area of family law as a result of the law. As stated in the blog, the law will affect custody and visitation law, as now same-sex couples who marry and adopt a child will both be the legal parents of the child; pre-nuptial agreements; and same sex divorces.
Continue reading →

Published on: March 10, 2011

Maryland Same Sex Marriage Legislation Scheduled for Final Vote

By Monica Scherer

The legislation pending to allow same-sex couples to marry is scheduled for a final vote this Friday, March 11, 2011 in the Maryland House of Delegates as reported by the Baltimore Sun. The legislation has already passed the Maryland Senate and the House Judiciary Committee. The passage of the bill, if signed by the Governor, would allow same-sex couples to marry in the State of Maryland. The passage of this bill would not afford same-sex couples who chose to marry more rights than those of their heterosexual counterparts. The bill would solely extend the civil protections already afforded to married couples to same-sex couples who chose to marry.

For more information, contact Monica Scherer, Esq. at 410-625-4740

Published on: March 7, 2011

Maryland House Judiciary Committee Passes Same Sex Marriage Bill

By Monica Scherer

The same sex marriage bill passed at the House Judiciary Committee on Friday, March 4, 2011 by a 12-10 vote as the Baltimore Sun reports. This means that the bill will move to the full House of Delegates for debate, which is scheduled to start as early as this Tuesday, March 8, 2011. As we previously blogged, on February 25, 2011 the bill if passed into law would allow same sex couples to wed. Delegates who had previously opposed the bill have expressed that they will vote to pass the bill as they believe it should ultimately be up to the voters to decide. As the Sun reports, if the bill passes in the House of Delegates, “Gov. Martin O’Malley has said he will sign the legislation if it reaches his desk. Opponents could then gather the roughly 55,000 signatures needed to petition the new law to referendum, where voters in the 2012 presidential election will decide whether to repeal it or leave it on the books.

For more information, contact Monica Scherer, Esq. at 410-625-4740

Published on: February 25, 2011

Recent Maryland Court of Appeals Case on Dissipation

By Monica Scherer

Maryland law defines dissipation as when “one spouse uses marital property for his or her own benefit for a purpose unrelated to the marriage at a time where the marriage is undergoing an irreconcilable breakdown.” Sharp v. Sharp, 58 Md. App. 386 (1984). At issue is also whether or not the party spent or depleted the marital funds or property with the principal purpose of reducing the amount of funds that would be available for equitable distribution at the time of divorce. In a recent opinion by Judge Murphy on behalf of the Court of Appeals the Court faced the question as to who has the burden of proving that the assets had been dissipated. The case, Omayaka v. Omayaka was originally heard by the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County for the final divorce hearing in July 2007. At this hearing the attorney for Mr. Omayaka attempted to prove that the wife had dissipated martial assets. Mr. Omayaka claimed that Mrs. Omayaka had opened up an account in her name only during their marriage and had withdrawn over $80,000.00 from the account since 2005. Mr. Omayaka’s attorney questioned Mrs. Omayaka on what the money was spent on and she stated clothing, food, insurance for the baby, rent, credit card debt, a car loan and the babysitter. At the conclusion of the case the Circuit Court found that there had not been a dissipation of assets because the attorney for Mr. Omayaka had not met the burden of proving that the money was spent for a purpose unrelated to the marriage during a time when the marriage is irretrievably broken. The attorney for Mr. Omayaka filed an appeal based on the contention that he had met his burden of proof showing dissipation of the assets. The Court of Appeals, in its’ opinion, clears up the burden of proof question with the following guide:

The alleging party must first put on a prima facie case that the marital assets were taken by one spouse without agreement with the other spouse. Then, the burden shifts to the alleged spending party to produce evidence that generates a genuine question of fact on the issues of whether the assets were taken without agreement, and/or where the funds are, and or were they used for marital or family expenses. However, the court points out that it is clear that the burden lies on the party who claims that the other party has dissipated marital assets to clearly prove that the funds were spent solely to reduce the money available for equitable distribution.
Continue reading →