Maryland Divorce Lawyer Blog

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" »

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.

On September 21, 2009, the Maryland Court of Appeals issued an opinion holding that the Circuit Court for Garrett County had erred in ordering a paternity test for a child without first considering the child’s best interest. The case, Kamp v. Department of Human Resources, began when Darren Kamp, the father of four children with ex-wife, Vicki Duckworth, requested a paternity test for his fourth child after his ex-wife filed a motion to increase child support. The parties had been married for 16 years, had three children whose paternity was not questioned, but then had a fourth child after Darren had had a vasectomy. During the divorce proceedings in 1999, Darren agreed that he had four children.

The trial court, after ordering paternity testing that found that Darren was not the father of the fourth child, denied Vicki’s motion to increase child support and further terminated Darren’s child support obligation. The Department of Human Services appealed the trial court’s ruling, arguing that Darren could not contest paternity. Maryland’s highest court’s judges all agreed that trial court erred in ordering the test and terminating support, but disagree on their reasoning why. Three of the judges would base their decision on Darren’s 13 year delay in challenging paternity of the child, while the other four judge’s base their decision on the trial court’s lack of consideration of the best interest of the child before ordering the test.

The law in Maryland states that “there is a rebuttable presumption that the child is the legitimate child of the man to whom its mother was married at the time of conception.” Maryland Code, Family Law 5-1027. The issue of paternity often arises during a divorce when there are adultery allegations. Based upon this new ruling, if the putative father is unsure he is the biological father, it is his burden at the divorce stage to pursue and resolve the issue. The failure to do so could mean he is financially obligated to support the child until child support would otherwise terminate.

Continue reading "Recent Maryland Court of Appeals Ruling on Paternity" »

On June 3, 2009, in the case of Barrett v. Ayres, the Maryland Court of Special Appeals found that Sharon Barrett did not need to show a material change in circumstances in order to modify the current set visitation schedule between her daughter and her daughter’s paternal grandparents, Bryan and Helen Ayres. Sharon Barrett had agreed to a visitation schedule between her daughter and the Ayres after her husband was seriously injured in a car accident in 2004. However, the relationship had become strained and Sharon believed that it was no longer in her daughter’s best interest to visit with her grandparents. The Court stated a parent’s decision that their child’s visitation with a third party should be modified is a material change in and of itself. The burden then shifts to the third party to establish that the parent is unfit or other exceptional circumstances exist. In this case the grandparents now have the burden to prove the parents are unfit or exceptional circumstances exist.

While not seemingly an issue in the Barrett case, some factors used to assess
fitness include parental characteristics such as age, stability, and the capacity and interest of a parent to provide for the emotional, social, moral, material, and educational needs of the child. If the Court finds a parent to be fit, the next issue is whether such exceptional circumstances exist to determine what is in the minor child’s best interest in terms of visitation and/or custody. In cases of both custody and visitation there can be any number of factors used to determine whether exceptional circumstances exist. Historically, the Court often makes findings as to (1) nature and strength of ties between child and third party; (2) intense and genuine desire of third party to have custody/visitation of the child; (3) stability and certainty of child’s future; and (4) emotional effect of changing custody. If the Court finds exceptional circumstances exist, then the Court will determine what is in the minor child’s best interest.

In custody matters, Maryland Courts presume that a child’s best interests are better served in the care and custody of his or her natural parents rather than a third party. The third party threshold showing is necessary because parents have a fundamental right to control the upbringing of their children, which includes with whom the children spend their time, i.e. with whom they have visitation. Barrett is a landmark decision in Maryland as it expands the 2007 decision in Koshko v. Haining to apply to not only initial determinations of third party custody or visitation, but also to modifications of it.