Articles Posted in Divorce

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

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

Couples who are getting a Maryland divorce often fight over marital property, especially the marital home. Once a court decides what property is marital property (such things as pension, retirement, or a deferred compensation plan) it may transfer ownership in order to adjust the equity of the parties with respect to the marital property. However, a trial court cannot order that the title of a marital home be transferred if the parties have already agreed in a formal agreement that the home is non-marital property.

In a 2010 case, an appellate court considered, among other things, whether a divorce court had the authority to transfer ownership of a jointly owned marital home that the parties had agreed would be non-marital. The couple in the case were a cardiologist and an attorney in their fifties with no children.

The parties filed a joint proposed statement regarding marital and non-marital property. They owned their residence as tenants by the entirety, but listed the property as non-marital on the statement. At trial, the husband did not appear because he was incarcerated for an earlier domestic violence altercation. Meanwhile the wife testified and called the husband abusive, describing how he humiliated her, criticized her, slapped and restrained her freedom of movement. Continue reading

A fraudulent conveyance is controlled by Maryland’s Uniform Fraudulent Conveyance Act (MUFCA), a statute which states that an action is fraudulent as to creditors if it is made by a person who is insolvent or who will be rendered insolvent by the transfer. When a couple is going through a divorce, they should not transfer any properties until the court has had a chance to determine the ownership status of the properties. In a recent case, the Maryland appellate court looked at the issue of fraudulent conveyance in the context of a divorce.

A couple married in 1998 and moved into a home owned by the wife’s father. The wife’s father had owned the home since the 1970s and the couple lived there rent-free. When the wife’s father retired he agreed with the couple to let them purchase the house from him. They assumed the remaining mortgage and agreed to pay him $30,000 on the first of three possible events (the house’s sale, sixty days after his death, or a date in 2015).

The transfer of the house was made only in the wife’s name and, in exchange for the foregoing, her father could live in the house rent-free or have the couple provide him with other rent-free housing. The couple started to have problems and the wife told the husband she wanted a divorce. Continue reading