Articles Posted in Divorce

In spite of an increasing number of headlines involving people whose social media use has endangered their lawsuits, Americans continue to post incriminating information on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and other social networks. In fact, according to the Pew Research Center, as of September 2013, 73% of adults online in America use social networks. Unfortunately a feature of social networking is its ease; because it’s so easy to connect with others, most people don’t think very carefully before they post or tweet. A Maryland divorce, alimony, child custody and divorce battles can be put in jeopardy by the information your soon-to-be-ex-spouse or a family law attorney finds about your on Twitter.

In the past, couples would hire private detectives to find out whether their spouse had cheated or had other secrets that could result in is getting easier and easier to catch litigants in lies. Often this is no longer necessary because people willingly share information that can damage them on social media.

If you are going through a divorce, you should either close your social media accounts or simply take a break from them. Privacy filters are unlikely to be of much help in a divorce case. One reason for this is that couples share a lot of common friends. It is very easy to think that you have gotten “custody” of a particular friend and be wrong. A friend may casually mention something to your spouse not knowing it is information that will hurt you.

In a 2010 case an appellate court considered whether funds received by the ex-wife as a settlement in an employment discrimination claim were marital property. The couple was married in 1998 and had two children, ages 10 and 4 at the time of trial in this case. The ex-wife was an attorney and the ex-husband was a clerk with the IRS. The ex-wife filed for divorce on the grounds of constructive desertion. The ex-husband filed a counterclaim on the same basis. They had lived apart for 1 year beforehand. The court granted the divorce on that basis.

During the marriage, the ex-wife’s employment with her law firm was terminated as of December 31, 2002. She filed a discrimination lawsuit against the firm and its partners and employees, alleging violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act. She settled the case in 2006 and was paid $550,000. These were paid in two installments.

In a joint statement to the court in connection with the divorce proceedings, she claims she kept $300,000 from the settlement. She contended that the settlement didn’t specify which portion represented what element of damage and therefore, the settlement could not be characterized as marital property. The ex-husband argued that the settlement was marital property. The trial court found that the lawsuit was based on employer practices that had occurred during the marriage. However, it did not find that the settlement was marital property. Continue reading

In a recent case, a Maryland appellate court considered a local court policy that limited the parties’ ability to access investigative reports ordered by the court in a child custody matter. The mother challenged this policy after the court awarded sole legal and physical custody to the father of her children.

The case arose when a father filed for divorce. He sought sole physical and legal custody of their two kids. The court ordered that the Adoption and Custody Unit (ACU) investigate and prepare a report. The ACU interviewed the parties, relatives, and the kids and discovered the parties’ personal history, including education, housing, employment, criminal and physical and mental health histories. The report was 147 pages including records. The report did not recommend which parent should get custody.

The day the report was due came and went. The ACU filed the report late. The parties’ attorneys were notified they could now look at the report at the clerk’s office. The policy was that the attorneys could view the report in the office, but could not copy any sections or take it out of the office. Continue reading

Property division in Maryland divorce cases concerns not just tangible items that were used during the marriage, but also property that accrued during the marriage, such as investments and pension benefits. In a 2009 appellate case, the Maryland Court of Special Appeals considered whether an ex-husband should be required to pay his ex-wife $19,936 in pension arrears. The case arose after a husband and wife entered into a Separation Agreement that was incorporated into the Judgment of Absolute Divorce.

Under the terms of the agreement, the husband was required to pay part of his pension to the wife. The amount was calculated by multiplying 40% times a fraction. The numerator of the fraction was the number of years the parties were married during which the pension accrued and the denominator was the total number of years in which the husband had accrued the pension. The resulting figure was to be multiplied by the total amount of the pension. The divorce judgment permitted the court to keep jurisdiction for purposes of modifying the order after a Qualified Domestic Relations Order was issued.

Eleven years later, the ex-husband retired from his company at age 62. He started to receive his pension, but did not let his ex-wife know. Continue reading

Can a family law judge look at anything outside statutory guidelines to determine an alimony award? This issue was illustrated in a 2010 case. The couple in the case married in 1985 and had two kids. In 1988, the husband earned an MBA and got a job at the Federal Reserve Board. The wife completed one year of college and worked at CVS for 45-55 hours per week. Later she took an administrative assistant job, which reduced her pay by $10,000 while her husband advanced in his career, so that she could look after the kids. The couple lived a middle-class lifestyle.

In 2006, the husband moved out and filed for divorce. The wife filed a counter-complaint seeking property, child support, alimony, and more. During the divorce trial, the wife argued she needed alimony because she wasn’t self-supporting. The husband argued she could support herself.

The court issued an oral opinion that she couldn’t maintain the middle-class lifestyle unless alimony was awarded. Therefore, the judge awarded $3000 per month in alimony. Continue reading

Dissipation of marital property in Maryland occurs when one spouse uses the marital property for a benefit unrelated to the marriage while the marriage is falling apart. In a 2011 case, a couple had married in 1998 and was divorced less than 10 years later. During the divorce, the wife filed an amended complaint for divorce claiming all property issues had been resolved.

The husband answered that they hadn’t been, claiming that the wife had taken $80,000 of marital funds without his knowledge or approval while the divorce was pending and were not used for a family use purpose. He claimed some funds were wired overseas. He asked that the court order his wife to account for the funds and grant him a monetary award.

At a hearing, the husband’s lawyer called the wife to testify. The wife’s testimony conceded that she had opened two bank accounts that were only in her name. She also conceded she had made withdrawals of $80,000. She denied dissipating marital funds, testifying she had spent the money on family uses such as clothing, food, health insurance, rent, the car, her kids overseas, and the babysitter. Continue reading

Parties who marry in Maryland can choose to enter prenuptial agreements that are governed by religious rather than secular law. They can also elect to have issues that arise heard by an arbitrator outside secular law, such as a religious body. However, should you choose to do this, you should be aware that secular law may not have the authority to reverse substantive decisions made by a religious body that you have authorized to hear issues concerning a divorce, should one be necessary.

A recent case illustrates the kind of problems that can arise when you choose to sign a prenuptial agreement and arbitration agreement. In the case, a couple were married both under secular and Jewish law. They signed a prenuptial agreement that stated if the parties did not continue to live together, the man would pay the woman $100 a day from the day they stopped living together until the end of their Jewish marriage. They also signed an arbitration agreement which allowed an arbitration panel, the Beth Din (a rabbinical court) to decide all controversies in their Jewish divorce and the premarital agreement. The decisions were to be made in accord with Jewish law.

The couple had a child, but within a year after her birth, the marriage fell apart. The pair separated and the next year the man sued for a divorce. The woman counterclaimed and asked for sole custody and a variety of monetary awards. The trial court resolved custody and granted them an absolute divorce. The court denied the woman’s request for alimony. Continue reading

Maryland uses something called “the Bangs formula” to decide the marital share of an asset in a divorce case. The formula is called this because of a 1984 case called Bangs v. Bangs. Under the formula, the court looks at the number of years of a person’s working life, during which time the pension accrues. That determines the pension’s value. The percentage of the total working life that happened during the marriage is marital and the percentage that happens before or after is nonmarital. Any additional months of life or marriage after the pension stops accruing are not part of the figure.

A 2009 case examined the application of the Bangs formula. In that case, the husband and wife were married in 1990 and had two children. The husband was a police officer who sustained numerous physical injuries. He was eligible for regular retirement in 1997, but was approached by the county to take a disability retirement, which he took. The couple separated in 2003. The wife moved to Indiana.

The couple divorced in 2007, by which time the husband’s police department service during the marriage had been 12 years and 11 months. In his complaint for divorce, the husband asked for several things including child support, contribution from the wife for medical expenses and health insurance for the children, and use of the family home. The wife counterclaimed and a trial was held. Continue reading

In Maryland, courts scrutinize attacks to prenuptial agreements carefully. They interpret prenups as they would any other contract between two consenting adults. In a recent case, a twenty-six-year-old woman had married a father of three. In 1988 when they married, she was working in a daycare center for minimum wage. The man was a successful construction company owner, not yet divorced with $2 million in assets.

Once the man divorced his former wife, he told the woman he wouldn’t marry her unless she signed a prenuptial agreement that his attorney had prepared, waiving any interest in certain items of his property. She signed it four days before their wedding, though later on the pair disagreed about when he had given it to her.

The prenup stated that both parties had the opportunity to consult counsel. The agreement listed various property that the wife would not have any ownership interest in. However, the agreement didn’t mention certain items of property, such as the man’s IRA. Continue reading

What is “limited divorce” in Maryland? The state recognizes both “limited” and “absolute” divorce. The latter is a true divorce. The former is a legal separation that may be pending the absolute divorce judgment. There are only certain issues in a limited divorce that a court can rule upon. Among these are custody, access to children, child support, how the family home is used and possessed, alimony and attorneys’ fees. Unlike absolute divorce, limited divorce does not deal with distribution of property.

Maryland courts grant a limited divorce for a no-fault voluntary separation that lasts less than a year. It also grants a limited divorce on the grounds of: extreme cruelty towards a spouse or child, excessively vicious conduct to a spouse where minor children exist, and a desertion shorter than 1 year.

As with absolute divorce, you generally may not live with your spouse during a limited divorce, even though you are legally married. The court has ruled, however, that there are certain circumstances in which it may be possible to live with your spouse during a limited divorce. You also may not have sexual relations with your spouse or have sexual relations with somebody else. If you do have sexual relations with somebody else while holding a limited divorce status, you will have committed adultery in the court’s eyes. The court might also require you to try to reconcile with your spouse, unless you both petition the court to say that you don’t want to do so. Continue reading

Contact Information