Maryland Divorce Lawyer Blog1. Well in advance of each holiday, refer to your existing Court Order, Separation Agreement, and/or Judgment of Absolute Divorce to determine what your Order and/or Agreement sets forth for each holiday.
Articles Posted in Divorce
Published on:
2010 Holiday Disputes in Maryland Custody and Visitation Matters
With the holidays approaching many clients may be facing uncertainty or conflicts as to where their child(ren) will be spending the holiday. We always advise clients to plan holidays far in advance so a schedule can be arranged that is best for the child(ren). It is important to develop a schedule that is not too overwhelming for children, so they can enjoy the holiday without exchanges at inopportune times, such as midnight on Christmas Eve, or too many exchanges in one day. It is also important to remember not to make plans for your child(ren) on the holiday until you know what the schedule will be. Lastly, for your child’s sake, explain to them how the holiday schedule will go, do not seek their input or place a guilt trip on your child(ren) for not being with you for the holiday or a portion of the holiday, and be flexible and accommodating to making the holiday work for everyone. Everyone does include the other parent and his or her family.
If you are unable to reach a holiday arrangement with your child’s parent you may turn to what many practitioners refer to as “holiday court”. Most Circuit Courts throughout the State of Maryland implement a specific protocol 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 the nearby Circuit Courts to find out how they will be handling this year’s holiday disputes.
Continue reading →
Published on:
No Fault Divorce Now Law in All 50 States
On October 13, 2010 Consumer Reports.com reported that no-fault divorce has become available in all fifty states, with New York making no fault divorce part of their laws on October 12, 2010. A no-fault divorce is a divorce filing in which no fault based grounds need to be alleged, such as adultery or spousal abuse. As reported in our August 19, 2009 blog Maryland is a what is called a “hybrid state” in that a party filing for divorce may elect to proceed on fault (contested) or no-fault (uncontested) based grounds.
Published on:
Better Parenting After Divorce?
There are two parts to custody in the State of Maryland, legal custody and physical custody. Legal custody is the ability to make decisions regarding the child’s health, education, religion and other matters of significant importance. Legal custody can be awarded solely to one parent or jointly to both parents (there are also variations on joint legal custody, such as having on parent as a tie breaker or a requirement to mediate when parents cannot reach a joint decision or assigning each parent sole legal decision making with respect to different issues, ie Mom makes the decisions on education and Dad makes the decisions on religion and the parents have joint legal custody on religious issues). Maryland courts have held that the strongest factor in determining whether to award joint legal custody is the ability of the parents to communicate with each other regarding the children.
Physical custody pertains to with whom the child resides. Physical custody can be awarded primarily to one parent or it can be shared between the parents. The Maryland case Taylor v. Taylor, 306 Md. 290, 508 A.2d 964 (1986), sets forth a list of several of the factors a Court will consider for the award of shared physical custody. These considerations include:
i. capacity of the parents to communicate and reach shared decisions affecting the child’s welfare;
ii. willingness of the parents to share custody;
iii. fitness of the parents;
iv. relationship established between the child and each parent;
v. preference of the child;
vi. potential disruption of the child’s social and school lives;
vii. geographic proximity of the parental homes;
viii. demands of parental employment;
ix. age and number of the children;
x. sincerity of both parents’ requests;
xi. financial status of the parties; and xii. benefit to the parents.
Continue reading →
Published on:
Calvert County Judge Orders Couple to Share Custody of Dog
The Baltimore Sun reported on July 7, 2010 that retired Prince George’s Circuit Judge Graydon S. McKee III ordered Gayle and Craig Meyers to split custody of their dog at their limited divorce proceeding . For more information on limited divorce see our March 19, 2010 blog. In accordance with Maryland law, pets are considered marital property and are to be divided as such. For more information on marital property in Maryland, see Maryland Code, Family Law 8-203 and see August 19, 2009 blog. Instead of ordering the couple to sell the dog and split the proceeds, the Judge ordered that the dog will alternate spending six months with each party. As reported, “it was very clear that both of them love this dog equally,” McKee said. “The only fair thing to do was to give each one an equal chance to share in the love of the dog.”
Continue reading →
Published on:
Facebook Page Evidence in Maryland Divorce Cases
The Maryland Daily Record reported on June 28, 2010 that 81% of divorce attorneys have used Facebook as a form of evidence. It is a growing phenomenon in the family law practice and it has occurred in our practice in divorce hearings, custody hearings, and protective order hearings. The statements on a spouse or parent’s Facebook page may be just enough, and appears to have been just enough, to push the Judge in one direction or another in a case. Most Judges may not be aware of the context of a picture or statement on Facebook and with blurry evidentiary rules regarding their admission a picture that is funny to you may appear disturbing to a Judge.
Many may question why a Facebook page would be relevant in a divorce, custody or protective order matter. As explained in our February 28, 2010 blog, a fault based divorce such as adultery requires proof of both the opportunity and disposition for the adulterous relationship to be proven. A Facebook page displaying pictures or words of affection may be the key to proving the disposition element needed for adultery. As explained in our October 23, 2009 blog, in custody proceedings a significant factor that is considered is parental fitness. A Facebook page displaying irresponsible habits of a parent may question the fitness of that parent in caring for their child. As explained in our August 16, 2009 blog, the alleged abuse that is needed to enter a protective order can consist of a threat of serious imminent bodily harm. Such a threat on a Facebook page may be enough for a Judge to enter a protective order.
Continue reading →
Published on:
Recent Maryland Court of Appeals Decision Ok’s Use of Alimony Guidelines in a Maryland Divorce
As stated in our October 2, 2009 blog on alimony the Court may consider, among others, twelve different factors in deciding how much and for how long to award alimony. However, these factors provide very little guidance on how much alimony is appropriate based on income and financial figures. In Boemio v. Boemio, No. 57, September Term, 2009, the Court held that the courts are not limited to the twelve enumerated factors in the statue and that given the difficulty of translating those factors into a numerical award, courts may consult guidelines developed by a reasonable and neutral source. Such guidelines are fashioned similar to the Maryland Child Support guidelines and provide a numeric formula. The Circuit Court in this case consulted the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyer’s guidelines but the Court of Appeals held that courts may also consult other guidelines such as the Women’s Law Center Kaufman Alimony Guidelines.
Published on:
Grounds for a Limited Divorce in Maryland
It is common for one to be unaware that there are two types of divorce in Maryland. An absolute divorce is typically what one thinks of when thinking of a “divorce.” See February 28, 2010 Blog. On the other hand, a limited divorce merely legalizes a separation. A limited divorce is generally sought when the parties do not have grounds for an absolute divorce yet and are unable to come up with a settlement agreement, but a party is in need of financial relief or child custody and access needs to be established.
Under Maryland law, the Judge may grant a limited divorce on grounds of: “(1) cruelty of treatment of the filing party or of a minor child of the filing party, (2) excessively vicious conduct to the filing party or to a minor child of the filing party; (3) desertion (actual or constructive); or (4) voluntary separation, if the parties are living separate and apart without cohabitation and there is no reasonable expectation of reconciliation.” Maryland Code, Family Law § 7-102. In contrast to an absolute divorce, there is no time period that the parties need to be living separate and apart in order for the judge to grant a limited divorce on the grounds of voluntary separation.
Unlike an absolute divorce, a limited divorce does not sever the marital bonds. Therefore, the parties are not entitled to remarry. Judges will often grant a limited divorce to a couple seeking an absolute divorce if they find that there is insufficient evidence to amount to an absolute divorce, but sufficient grounds for a limited divorce. There are few advantages to filing for a limited divorce. It can be a way to get a spouse out of the house without a waiting period, or for a spouse to leave the house without risking a claim of desertion. Additionally, a couple may want to keep their marital status for religious or economic reasons, such as health benefits or tax purposes. It also serves as a method of documenting the start date of the parties’ separation period, if needed for an absolute divorce.
Continue reading →
Published on:
Maryland Attorney General Supports Same Sex Marriage Recognition
On Wednesday, February 24, 2010, Maryland Attorney General Doug Gansler issued an opinion stating that Maryland courts and officials should recognize as valid same-sex marriages performed in other states. The Attorney General believes that the Maryland Courts will follow his lead, as they have recognized marriages performed legally in other states as legal here in Maryland. For example, while common law marriage is not recognized in Maryland, if a couple was married due to a common law relationship in another state Maryland has recognized that as a valid marriage. Also, the Attorney General points out that Maryland has recognized increasing rights for same-sex couples in the recent past, including the right to adopt. This Opinion puts state officials on notice that the Attorney General believes that Maryland is bound by the constitution to recognize these marriages as valid in Maryland, and state agencies should begin extending married rights to the couples. For more information on same-sex marriages view our February 5, 2010 blog.
Published on:
Maryland Divorce: Fault Based Grounds for Divorce
As stated in the August 15, 2009 blog, Maryland is a hybrid state in that a party filing for an absolute divorce may elect to proceed on fault (contested) or no-fault (uncontested) based grounds. The Maryland Code, Family Law § 7-103 states that there are six fault based grounds for an absolute divorce: adultery, desertion, cruelty of treatment, insanity, incarceration and excessively vicious conduct.
Adultery, or voluntary intercourse between a spouse and an individual other than their spouse who is of the opposite sex, is a fault based ground for divorce that requires no waiting period to file. However, while you do not have to show evidence of the actual intercourse between your spouse and his or her paramour you must be able to prove both the opportunity and disposition for the adulterous intercourse to be proven.
In order to file for an absolute divorce based on desertion the desertion must continue for one year uninterrupted before filing, must have been a final and deliberate act, and there must be no reasonable hope of reconciliation. Desertion can be either actual or constructive. Actual desertion occurs when the spouse leaves the home without cause, and constructive desertion occurs when a spouse’s conduct justifies a leaving spouse to do so.
Cruelty of treatment and excessively vicious conduct are both fault based grounds that do not require any waiting period. Both grounds involve acts or a single act of violent conduct. Cruelty of treatment involves conduct that threatens or inflicts bodily harm upon a person or minor child of the parties. Excessively vicious conduct is usually acts of extreme domestic violence and may require a pattern of this violence.
Continue reading →
Published on:
Maryland Lawmakers Reject Effort to Block Gay Marriage
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.
Published on:
Maryland Delegate Proposes “No Sex” Divorce
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 for the one year 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, among other things, that the parties have lived separate and apart for one year.
Continue reading →
Published on:
How Do Courts Divide a Marital Business in a Maryland 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 →
Published on:
Recent Maryland Court of Special Appeals Ruling on Alimony
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 →
Published on:
Retirement Accounts in a Maryland Divorce
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.