Articles Posted in Divorce

| by

As many people know, divorce can be difficult. There are serious practical, emotional and financial issues for the parties to identify, weigh, and hopefully resolve as amicably and quickly as possible. Since each family is unique, with its own set of personal facts and circumstances, there is no one simple solution for dissolution of marriage. The important thing to know, however, is that an experienced Maryland family law attorney can help to move your case along smoothly and efficiently, with the goal of protecting your interests and rights every step of the way.

When a divorcing couple has children, it can make the matter even more complicated. Issues such as child custody, visitation, and support have the potential to elicit strong disagreements between the spouses. In a recent Maryland court of special appeals case, the couple divorced in 2001, and the court granted the parties joint legal custody of their two sons but awarded the father sole physical custody. Child support was not given to either party. From 2002 until 2010, the mother lived in the state of Washington. During that time, one of their sons was diagnosed with an autism spectrum disorder and other medical issues. The boys had limited contact with their mother while she was in Washington. In 2012, the husband filed a motion for child support. He also asked the court: 1) to find that the son with autism was a “destitute adult child,” and 2) to order the mother to pay for medical expenses and for his attorney’s fees.

The wife opposed the motion and sought custody of one of their sons. The circuit court denied the motion to change custody, determined that the child was a destitute adult child, and ordered the wife to pay $850 per month in child support for both children, as well as the husband’s attorney’s fees. The wife appealed, arguing (among other things) that there was no analysis regarding the child’s total reasonable living expenses, and therefore child support should have been denied. She did not raise a question as to whether or not the court’s determination of child support was accurate. The court of appeals affirmed the decision in its entirety. Regarding the child support award, the court pointed to Maryland law, which makes it a misdemeanor for a parent with sufficient means not to provide support to his or her destitute adult child. Once a child has been determined to be so, the state child support guidelines under Family Law Section 12-204 apply to ascertain a parent’s support obligations. Here, the court found that the child was properly adjudicated a destitute adult child. Continue reading

| by

By its very nature, divorce divides a couple. Throughout the proceedings, spouses are expected to address and resolve many emotionally charged issues, such as child custody, visitation, division of property, spousal support, and many other significant matters. While many divorce cases are fraught with contentious conduct on behalf of one or both spouses, there are ways to approach a case with an eye toward moving the process along efficiently and amicably, while protecting one’s interests. One of the best ways to accomplish this goal is to consult with an experienced Maryland family law attorney, whose primary purpose is to resolve your divorce case as smoothly as possible, while aggressively protecting your interests.

In a recent case, described by the court as “particularly acrimonious,” the father attempted to modify an existing child custody order and objected to the “best interest attorney” or “BIA” whom the court appointed to represent his children in the proceeding. Here, the parties first separated and then ultimately divorced in February 2012. The divorce judgment incorporated prior written agreements, including a “parenting agreement” that granted the mother sole legal and primary physical custody of the children. The father was granted visitation rights. With respect to the children and their interaction with one another, the court pointed out that before and immediately after the divorce neither party behaved “admirably.” The husband claimed that the wife obstructed his visitation rights.

In July 2012, the husband sought a modification of the custody order, requesting sole custody of the children. He also began to withhold his alimony and child support payments and instead to apply them to the mortgage payments on the family residence. The wife sought to hold him in contempt for redirecting the payments and further asked the court to appoint a BIA to represent their children. The state of Maryland provides guidelines for court-appointed lawyers who represent children in child custody matters. Ultimately, the BIA recommended that the father’s custody petition be dismissed. The father sought to disqualify the children’s BIA and then changed his custody request, asking instead for sole legal custody while his wife retains physical custody. Continue reading

| by

One of the most significant financial aspects of a divorce is the division of marital property. Under Maryland law, courts have the authority to identify marital property, assess its value, transfer ownership between the parties, and issue a monetary award in order to even out the rights of the parties. Depending on the case and the nature of the relationship between the spouses, the couple may be able to enter into an agreement specifying the allocation of property, instead of relying on the court to do so. In any case, because this part of the divorce proceeding can significantly affect the parties’ lifestyle going forward, it is important to consult with an experienced Maryland attorney as early in the process as possible.

One of the items subject to property division in divorce is a spouse’s interest in retirement plan benefits earned during the marriage. In a recent divorce case, the couple entered into a property settlement agreement that included a clause allocating future benefits from the retirement plan sponsored by the husband’s employer. The agreement incorrectly implied that the plan was governed by federal law (ERISA), even though it was exempt from that law, and further stated that the divorce judgment would serve as a QDRO (a Qualified Domestic Relations Order). Neither party took any steps to obtain a QDRO for submission to the pension plan.

The husband remarried and designated his new wife as the beneficiary under the retirement plan. Upon the husband’s death, a dispute arose between the former wife and the second wife as to the entitlement of the retirement benefits. In accordance with the property settlement agreement, the former wife applied to the pension plan for a portion of the benefits that accrued during the marriage. The pension plan rejected her request, arguing that it never received a QDRO indicating that the ex-wife was a beneficiary of the husband’s death benefits. Next, she filed a complaint against the current wife, alleging that she had been unjustly enriched by receiving all of the pension and death benefits. Furthermore, she requested the imposition of a constructive trust on the portion of the pension and death benefits that the second wife received. Continue reading

| by

When a couple decides to divorce, there are many important issues to address and resolve before the parties can move forward with their respective lives. Many of these matters involve important financial considerations, such as the amount and duration of alimony payments. Fortunately, Maryland law provides some guidance for courts to use when determining the question of alimony. But each divorce case presents a unique set of facts that tend to influence whether and to what extent a court will order alimony to one spouse or the other. If you are considering a divorce, it is important to protect your financial interests at the earliest stage in the process, and consult with an experienced family law attorney who is familiar with the laws affecting Maryland families.

In a recent divorce case, the court of appeals addressed many issues raised separately by both spouses. One of the items on appeal concerned the amount of alimony awarded to the wife. Here, the parties graduated from Yale Law School in the early 1980s. They each had jobs at prestigious law firms and got married in 1989. The wife became pregnant in 1990 and stopped working to take care of their twin boys. When she stopped working, her annual salary was $120,000. They had a third child in 1994. The husband continued to work and was earning over $800,000 per year by 2010. The family lived an affluent lifestyle. In 2010, however, the couple separated, and both parties filed for divorce.

After a five-day trial, the court issued multiple awards, one pertaining to alimony. After reviewing the evidence, the court found that the wife’s earning capacity was based on her salary from over 20 years earlier and that the husband failed to produce evidence to support his claim that the wife could earn between $30,000 and $40,000 per year. Further, the trial court determined that the wife’s monthly, unearned income was $5,813, and her expenses totaled $15,812, leaving her with a significant deficit. The court ultimately awarded the wife $14,191 in monthly alimony payments. The husband appealed the award, arguing, among other things, that the trial court erred when it failed to impute any earned income to the wife. Continue reading

| by

Calculation of pension division can be challenging. Typically a formula called “the Bangs formula” is used, but application of the formula can be complicated. In a 2010 case, a husband and wife divorced and reached a settlement agreement about all child custody, child support, and property division issues. The agreement was incorporated into the judgment of absolute divorce. The wife appealed with regard to the post-judgment entry of orders related to domestic relations and the husband’s pension. She claimed that her share of the pension was miscalculated.

The couple had married in 2000 and had a child two years later. They divorced after seven years. Before they married, the husband was in the Maryland National Guard, and he was serving on reserve status when they married. During the marriage, he worked as a paramedic for a city and had to contribute 6% of his salary to the Fire & Police Employees’ Retirement System. Later he became full-time in the army and served full time from then on, although he was on a paid military leave of absence at the time of the appeal. Meanwhile, the wife was a pharmacist employed by CVS.

The husband filed for divorce, and the wife filed a counter-complaint in 2006. During a merits hearing, the parties entered into an agreement. The parties agreed that the wife had an “if-as-when interest” in half of the marital share of the fire department benefits and the military pension. The court advised that the pension rights were set based on the number of months of the marriage, so as the pension rights increased, the wife’s share would not necessarily increase. The husband expressed he understood. Divorce was granted, and qualified domestic relation orders were supposed to be submitted. However, the parties could not reach agreement about the terms of the orders for the city pension and military pension. The wife filed a motion with regard to these orders, and the husband filed oppositions. Continue reading

| by

In a 2008 case, a husband and wife were married in North Carolina in 1994 and had two kids. The wife filed for limited divorce in 2005. The case was tried in 2006-2007. In 2007, a judgment of absolute divorce was granted on the grounds that the wife had committed adultery.

Among other things, the wife was awarded sole legal and physical custody of the children and the husband was ordered to pay child support. The husband was found in contempt for failing to pay child support previously ordered. The judge also granted the wife use and possession of the family home for two years.

The husband appealed on five grounds. One of these grounds was that the judge should not have treated the house at Alfreton Court as the family home under Family Law Article § 8-201. The judge awarded the use and possession of the residence to the wife and children under § 8-208(a), which provided that in the context of divorce, regardless of how the family home was owned or titled or leased, the judge could give one party sole possession of the property. Continue reading

| by

In an interesting recent case, a Maryland wife opposed her husband’s request for divorce based on a 12-month separation. The basis for her opposition was that she had continued to have phone sex with the husband while they were separated. Under Section 7-103(a)(4) of the Family Law Article, a Maryland court can grant an absolute divorce to couples who were separated for 12 months if they lived separate and apart, not cohabiting for 12 months without interruption before they apply for divorce.

The couple had married in 2006 and then separated in 2010. The husband moved out because the wife had gotten a protective order against him. He filed a complaint for limited divorce, claiming voluntary separation and constructive desertion. When the protective order expired, the parties continued to maintain separate residences. Although divorce proceedings were pending, the couple started a sexual relationship. During the proceedings, the husband testified that the last time he had sex with the wife was in 2011 and after that he had not once spent the night with her.

Even so, the husband admitted he and the wife kept communicating through telephone conversations and text messages. Sometimes the conversations and text messages were explicit or sexually provocative, and the husband admitted the last time he did so was in 2012. He said the wife had come to his house unexpectedly on six occasions, but he didn’t allow her inside. The husband amended his complaint seeking absolute divorce on grounds of a 12-month separation. Continue reading

| by

In a recent case, a Maryland wife sued for divorce in 2010. The husband countersued shortly thereafter, but the following year, he mother dismissed the original suit and brought a new one requesting alimony, child support and monetary award.

Both husband and wife were lawyers. The wife stopped working when she got pregnant with twins and there were complications. The wife did not return to work because the twins had health problems. The couple had a third child. The wife had been making about $120,000 per year when she stopped working.

By 2010, the husband was making more than $800,000 per year. This allowed the couple an affluent lifestyle, including a house worth $2 million, multiple cars, private school and dinners out. The amount of time the husband spent at work put a strain on the marriage and drove them to minor violence towards each other before they finally separated. Continue reading

| by

A personal injury or other lawsuit against a spouse is unusual, but possible. It is likely that An interesting and challenging 2010 case arose when a wife sued her husband of 25 years for fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Both the husband and the wife were lawyers. During the marriage the husband managed the finances.

The couple had a joint checking account into which both spouses deposited their earnings. The wife stopped working to take care of their two children, but never read the bank statements. She also had an inheritance account only in her name, containing money inherited from relatives.

The wife later claimed that the husband spent huge sums from joint accounts on various investments and compact discs she couldn’t identify. The sums he spent exceeded the couple’s income. Accordingly, the husband took out loans against his 401k. He took out a home equity line of credit, ran up an overdraft of more than $10,000 and ran up debt on credit cards. He didn’t not tell his wife about these problems or why he had them. Continue reading

| by

It’s extremely rare for someone to request alimony separate from divorce these days, but it is possible. In an interesting 2009 case that illustrates the importance of having a family lawyer represent you through your divorce, a couple were married and had two children. The husband filed for limited divorce after a one-year separation from his wife. Next the wife counter-claimed for absolute divorce on the basis of adultery and abandonment. The wife requested alimony.

Both of the spouses needed an interpreter and were not represented by counsel. By law, requests for divorce are granted only with a corroborating witness. Neither the husband nor the wife had brought one. The court wasn’t able to award a divorce or a limited divorce. Additionally neither spouse offered testimony to corroborate grounds for divorce. The trial judge nonetheless heard testimony on child support and alimony.

Although the divorce case collapsed, the judge awarded custody of the two kids to the wife and ordered the husband to pay child support of $764. The judge ordered the husband to pay $1500 to the wife every month as indefinite alimony. The court did not characterize the alimony or child support as pendente lite (temporary pending litigation). The case was closed with the requests for divorce denied. Continue reading

Contact Information
Main Office
18310 Montgomery Village
Ave #250
Gaithersburg, MD 20879
Toll Free: (888) 519-2801Phone: (301) 519-2801Fax: (301) 519-2802
Florida Office
2255 Glades
Rd #324A
Boca Raton, FL 33431
Toll Free: (888) 519-2801

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 © 2025, Anthony A. Fatemi, LLC
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design