Published on:

By

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 Omayaka had opened up an account in her name only during their marriage and had withdrawn over $80,000.00 from the account since 2005.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.

The Court explains that Mrs. Omayaka’s testimony was sufficient to prove that the funds were spent on the family and Mr. Omayaka’s attorney presented no further evidence to meet his burden otherwise. Therefore, the Court of Appeals found that the Prince George’s County Circuit Court’s ruling was correct, as the burden was not met.

For more information regarding marital property including marital businesses contact Monica Scherer, Esq. at 410-625-4740 to speak with an experienced family law attorney at Silverman Thompson.

 

Continue reading →

By
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

By

As the Baltimore Sun reports, the Maryland Senate approved the Civil Marriage Protection Act on Thursday, February 25, 2011, which would allow same-sex couples to wed. Although the House of Delegates still needs to pass the Act, the Senate’s passage is still “historic.” We have previously blogged about the issues that surround the recognition of same-sex marriages in Maryland, specifically the Attorney General’s support of recognizing same sex marriages created validly in other states maryland and Maryland lawmakers attempt to block gay marriages. With this Act being passed by the Senate, it is time for us to prepare for changes we may see in our divorce and family law practice with the allowance of same-sex marriage.

The potential changes are vast but include the changes that we will see in custody and visitation law. Often same-sex couples adopt a child, however when couples are not married, only one partner is usually the legally recognized adopted parent. When these relationships end, the child is left with one legal parent and one who is presently recognized as a third party (not a parent) in the State of Maryland. For more information on the third party status that same sex parents currently face see our November 27, 2009 blog. With the passage of this legislation, same-sex couples who marry and adopt a child will both be the legal parents of the child and will be recognized as same should the marital relationship end in separation and/or divorce.
Continue reading →

By
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

By

As previously discussed in our August 15, 2009 blog, a divorce in Maryland may be filed on a no-fault basis (mutual and voluntary separation), after a one year separation period. Although parties may agree to file on a no-fault basis, they may not agree on the issues within their divorce, such as custody, property, alimony, etc., which renders the case contested. However, there are many cases where the couples were only married for a brief period of time, or do not have children, where clients come to us with not only a no-fault ground, but also no issues to resolve. They may have worked out a separation agreement before coming to us, or simply have no shared property to dispose of. In these cases, we must file for a divorce just as we would any other, but the courts have procedures in which these cases can be set in for the final divorce hearing much quicker than others. However, before the case can be set in for this hearing, the opposing side must file an Answer that confirms that the case is in fact uncontested and all issues are resolved. The final hearing is also much shorter than a normal hearing.

Continue reading →
By
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

By

Many Maryland divorce attorneys believe that the one year separation period required for a no-fault divorce in Maryland is too long as reported by the Maryland Daily Record on February 14, 2011. For more information on the one year separation period for a divorce see our October 14, 2010 blog and August 19, 2009 blog . A number of attorneys supporting the reduction of this separation period arrived at a state Senate committee hearing last week to support legislation that would reduce the one year separation requirement to six months. Many attorneys feel that if the parties have agreed to split they should be able to do so without having to drag out the process for a full year. However, many of the Senators feel that this separation period validates the sanctity of marriage and gives people the time to think if this is what they truly want. Unfortunately, it has not been our experience that this waiting period helps parties to reconcile. As the Daily Record reports, many states such as Virginia, Delaware and Washington D. C. have only a six month separation period. We have many clients who come to us after a week or two of being separated and the news that they must wait a year to file for an absolute divorce is crushing. However, there are other options for these clients, such as filing for a limited divorce, as describe in our March 19, 2010 blog, or pursuing a separation agreement.

Continue reading →
By
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

By

When meeting with clients initially and discussing the general course of litigation, I will advise them that discovery is part of that process, which usually prompts many questions. First and foremost is what is discovery? Discovery is a litigation tool used to gather and exchange relevant information and potential evidence from and with the opposing side prior to a trial. In a divorce matter it most frequently consists of Interrogatories, Request for Production of Documents, and Depositions of parties and witnesses. However, discovery may also involve Request for Admission of Facts, Notice of Records Depositions, and/oror Mental or physical Examinations of parties. Interrogatories are a list of a maximum of thirty questions usually involving employment history, lifestyle, assets, marital and non-marital property, child rearing responsibilities, and reasons for the dissolution of the marriage. Request for Production of Documents are a list of requests asking for documents from a party. These usually consist of financial documents, employment records, documents regarding the children, documentation of communications with the other party, documentation of expenses/debt and documents regarding the parties’ assets.

Many clients question why these documents need to be exchanged as they feel it is an invasion of their privacy. The theory of broad rights of discovery is that all parties will go to trial with as much knowledge as possible and that neither party should be able to keep secrets or have withheld discoverable information from the other. Further, client’s must know that if you or the opposing party makes a request or raises a particular issue in a matter, then the issue must be explored. The old adage “what is good for the goose is good for the gander”, often applies in these situations. If a document is requested that is particularly confidential in nature or for some reason should not be turned over to opposing counsel, clients can seek protection of that document by filing a motion with the court. If the opposing side is not turning over their documents and answers in a timely fashion then one may file a motion with the court asking them to compel these documents or to prohibit that party from entering any evidence regarding same at trial. If a party tries to introduce a document at trial that was not turned over to the other side prior to the hearing then the Judge may prohibit it from being entered into evidence. The discovery process is governed by the Maryland Rules commencing with Rule 2-401. Clients should also understand that while all pleadings in a matter are filed with the court, the discovery requests and responses are not. The court will not see the Answers to Interrogatories or Responses to Request for Production of Documents unless they are admitted in evidence at a trial.
Continue reading →

By
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

By

It is a situation in which many individuals seeking a divorce find themselves. They have high value assets to chase in their divorce proceedings, but no money to afford an attorney to do so. As the New York Times Reported on December 4, 2010 , a California based company, Balance Point is funding divorces for those who can not afford to do so. However, they take a percentage of their client’s winnings, so the cases that they accept are those where high value assets are involved. As the New York Times reports, “the number of companies investing in divorce is small – Balance Point is one of the few that do it exclusively. But other businesses are gearing up. A New York start-up, Churchill Divorce Finance, also is planning to enter the business.”

The Maryland Lawyers’ Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 1.5 prohibits attorneys from taking divorce cases on a contingency fee basis, meaning to take a percentage (as is often seen in personal injury and medical malpractice cases) of their client’s ultimate share of the marital estate as their form of compensation.
Continue reading →

By
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

By

While your spouse’s substance abuse issues may not affect you nearly as much since you have separated, they certainly will continue to affect your children. Unfortunately, many clients are faced with these issues. It is important to address all substance abuse concerns at the beginning of a matter, by bringing it to your attorney or the court’s attention. In many Maryland counties the Court, when requested, will order a substance abuse evaluation of the parties. Be aware that if you request an evaluation of your spouse, the Court will often order that the evaluation be performed on both parties. The evaluation will most likely consist of an interview including substance abuse history, and treatment and also in some cases urinalysis or other form of drug/alcohol screen. If a party asks, and the Court feels is it necessary, continuing drug screens of a party may be ordered. This allows for the party to gain visitation or custody with their child or children after maintaining positive results. If a custody evaluation is performed in a matter the evaluator will also utilize the information gained from drug screens or a substance abuse evaluation to assist them in making their recommendation.
Continue reading →

By
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

By

As reported in our September 30, 2010 blog , 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 one 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 health matters 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.

Many clients have questions as to exactly how a joint legal custody situation should operate. Questions such as, “if a doctor makes a recommendation for my child, I do not have to check with the other parent first, right?”, or “do I need to relay all information regarding my child to the other parent?” We tell clients that they can not take a doctors recommendation as the final decision without first discussing it with the other parent, unless it is an emergency situation. Ideally, the parents should attend the medical appointment together so decisions can be reached while with the doctor and the parents are hearing the same information from the doctor. In a joint legal custody situation, ALL decisions regarding the child’s health, education, and religion, whether it be the choice to administer a certain prescription medication, decisions regarding a child’s I.E.P., where the child will attend school, etc. must be discussed with the other parent and a joint decision must be reached.
Continue reading →

By
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

By

In my November 16, 2010 blog I briefly mentioned the concept of voluntary impoverishment. Maryland law describes voluntary impoverishment as freely, or an act by choice, to reduce oneself to poverty or deprive oneself of resources with the intention of avoiding child support, John O. v. Jane O. 90 Md. App. 406 (1992). Our case law has further explained voluntary impoverishment as whenever an individual has made the free and conscious choice, not compelled by factors beyond his or her control, to render himself or herself without adequate resources or income, Gordon v. Gordon, 174 Md. App. 583, 923 A.2d 149 (2007). Income is a factor in child support matters, divorce matters involving alimony, and a factor when deciding whether or not to award a party attorney’s fees.

In order to calculate child support in a Maryland child support case both parties’ incomes are needed. Maryland Code Family Law, § 12-201(h) defines income as (1) actual income of a parent, if the parent is employed to full capacity; or (2) potential income of a parent, if the parent is voluntarily impoverished. Before a Judge can impute a party a potential income for the purpose of calculating child support they must find that the party is in fact voluntarily impoverishing themselves. Oftentimes, establishing voluntary impoverishment is not a cut and dry as it may seem. To assist the Court in making a determination if a parent is voluntarily impoverished for purposes of calculating a child support obligation, several factors as to the parent are considered, including, but not limited to: (1) his or her current physical condition; (2) his or her respective level of education; (3) the timing of any change in employment or financial circumstances relative to the divorce proceedings; (4) the relationship of the parties prior to the divorce proceedings; (5) his or her efforts to find and retain employment; (6) his or her efforts to secure retraining if that is needed; (7) whether he or she has ever withheld support; (8) his or her past work history; (9) the area in which the parties live and the status of the job market there; and (10) any other considerations presented by either party. Gordon v. Gordon, 174 Md. App. 583, 923 A.2d 149 (2007); Stull v. Stull, 144 Md. App. 237, 797 A.2d 809 (2002).
Continue reading →

By
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

By

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 →

By
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

By

I recently tried a custody matter in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County, in which I represented the father of the minor child. The father came to our office in January 2010, after he had arranged for his minor child to reside with him upon learning that the child’s mother was not properly caring for him. The minor child had resided with his mother for nine years, but she had recently changed residences, which our client had great concerns about. Prior to January 2010, our client, who resides in a neighboring state, was visiting with the child every other weekend, when the parties were on good terms. After our client made arrangements for his son to live with him, the mother filed a Complaint for an Emergency Hearing, which was scheduled for March 2010 at the Circuit Court for Baltimore County. Due to a heavy docket we were sent to mediation and a hearing was not held. We were able to negotiate a temporary schedule which granted our client temporary sole physical and legal custody and allowed the mother visitation with the minor child.

The case was then set in for a final custody hearing, which was held in November 2010. At the final hearing, both parties were seeking sole legal and physical custody of the minor child. However, after evidence was presented regarding the parties respective living situations, stability, fitness, ability to maintain relationships for the minor child, and economic status, among other factors, the Judge awarded our client sole legal and physical custody of the minor child with visitation to the mother of the child. The factors that were considered are in line with those named in our October 23, 2009 blog, which details factors considered in custody disputes.
Continue reading →

By
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

By

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.

Continue reading →
By
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

By

It is not uncommon for clients involved in child support modification cases to ask if their news spouses’ income will be considered in the new child support calculation. For instance, Mr. and Mrs. Smith (first wife) were divorced in 2000 and at that time Mr. Smith was ordered to pay $300 per month in child support. Since that time, Mr. Smith has remarried to Mrs. Smith (second wife) and has also started a job making significantly more money, so Mrs. Smith (first wife) files a Complaint for modification of child support. Does Mrs. Smith’s (second wife) income count as part of Mr. Smith’s income for the purpose or recalculating the child support? The answer should be no. As Moore v. Tseronis, 106 Md. App. 275, 284-85, 664 A.2d 427, 431-32 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1995) reports the court should not impute a new spouse’s income to the parent involved in the child support case when calculating child support. Further, the Annotated Code of Maryland, Family Law § 12-201(b) defines income as actual or potential income of a parent, not the parent’s new spouses income. This applies not only in modification cases, but also initial child support calculation cases. For basic information on child support calculations visit our September 9, 2009 blog.
Continue reading →

By
Published on:
Updated:
Contact Information
Maryland Offices:
Downtown Baltimore Office
400 E Pratt St Suite 900
Baltimore, MD 21202
Office: (410) 385-2225 Toll Free: (800) 385-2243 Fax: (410) 547-2432 Email: firm@silvermanthompson.com
Baltimore County Office
1 W Pennsylvania Ave #905
Towson, MD 21204
Phone: (410) 494-7100 Email: firm@silvermanthompson.com
Washington, D.C. Office
By Appointment Only
1775 I St NW #1150
Washington, DC 20006
Phone: (202) 921-2225 Phone: (202) 539-2444
New York Office
By Appointment Only
40 Exchange Pl #1800
New York, NY 10005
Toll Free: (800) 385-2243
ATTORNEY ADVERTISING

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2016 – 2024, Silverman | Thompson | Slutkin | White LLC
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design