Divorce

Limited Divorce in Maryland

September 17, 2013 | by Anthony A. Fatemi, LLC

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

When is Indefinite Alimony Appropriate in Maryland?

September 12, 2013 | by Anthony A. Fatemi, LLC

In Maryland and elsewhere, disagreements over alimony can be the subject of very heated lawsuits. In a recent case, an appellate court looked at the marriage of a couple that married in 1990. The husband adopted the wife’s son from a prior marriage. At the time of the wedding, the wife was working as a medical secretary and she had a high school diploma and some community college. The couple decided she could resign and take on part time work in order to be a primary caretaker for the son. The wife also managed the finances and lived a fairly active life, in spite of fibromyalgia.

They satisfied a 30 year mortgage in ten years. They didn’t have outstanding debts and lived a comfortable middle class lifestyle. They purchased a second home from the husband’s parents and amassed $200,000 in a joint savings account. They started to have marital problems within the first five years of their marriage. The wife disapproved of the husband’s disciplining of their son.

Because of the wife’s issue with the husband losing his temper and disciplining the son, she and the son moved out of the house and moved in with her parents for a period. She came back to the marital home and they sought counseling from a pastor. Shortly after moving into the second house, the wife woke up with severe back pain, caused by a ruptured disc. This worsened her fibromyalgia. She couldn’t care for her son or the house the way she could before. Continue reading

Can a Maryland Judge Transfer a Marital Home to One of the Parties?

September 2, 2013 | by Anthony A. Fatemi, LLC

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

Child Abuse Charges in Maryland

August 21, 2013 | by Anthony A. Fatemi, LLC

One of the most difficult situations within Maryland family law is parental child abuse. A 2012 appellate case dealt with the question of a child abuse charge against a father. In the case, the department of social services received a report that a father had held one of his two children by the arm to make sure he finished eating spaghetti with mushrooms.

When the mother, who shared custody with the father, came to pick up the kids, she saw there were bruises on her son’s neck and a scratch under his chin. She took him to a pediatrician who reported the possible abuse to the department of social services. The police investigated and the son told them that the father had grabbed him by the neck and pulled him down.

The investigation led to a social worker finding that indicated child abuse. The father provided a substantially similar account as the son and the mother. Under Maryland law, child abuse is the physical or mental injury of a child by a parent who has care, custody or responsibility for supervising a child such that the child’s health or welfare may be harmed. Continue reading

Maryland Couple’s Dispute Over Transfer of House

July 14, 2013 | by Anthony A. Fatemi, LLC

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

Maryland Appellate Court Decides Railroad Retirement Benefit Case

May 11, 2013 | by Anthony A. Fatemi, LLC

The Maryland Court of Special Appeals recently determined in Dapp v. Dapp that certain retirement benefits may not be assigned or split in a divorce agreement. The case arose from a dispute between a couple who married in 1968. Amtrak employed the husband starting in 1981 and the couple separated about five years later. Two years after the couple separated, the wife was granted a divorce. The judgment of divorce incorporated the couple’s Marital Separation and Property Settlement Agreement.

The Agreement mutually waived alimony and other spousal support, but one paragraph provided that if the wife did not remarry within five years of the divorce, she would be entitled to half of the husband’s pension accrued with Amtrak. The wife did not remarry.

The husband had worked for Amtrak for 88 months before the divorce and 243 months after it. When he retired, he started to receive monthly retirement benefits as required by the Railroad Retirement Act (RRA) of 1974. $1950 of that monthly sum was “Tier 1” benefits. The Tier 1 benefits that the RRA provides are structured to substitute for Social Security benefits. $1163.13 was “Tier II benefits” and supplemental annuity payments. Mr. Dapp did not inform Mrs. Dapp of his retirement when he retired and she did not receive any retirement benefits.

Bigamy Can Lead to Misrepresentation Claim in Maryland

March 17, 2013 | by Anthony A. Fatemi, LLC

In the recent case Bradley v. Bradley, the Maryland Court of Appeals considered the questions raised when a woman sued a man she believed to be her husband for intentional negligent misrepresentation. Mr. Bradley and Ms. Bradley met in 2003 at Kennedy Krieger Institute. Ms. Bradley was responsible for Mr. Bradley’s son and was often in contact with Mr. Bradley who was then married with three kids. The next year, Mr. Bradley told Ms. Bradley that he had separated from his wife and started divorce proceedings. They commenced a long extramarital affair.

In 2006, after claiming that there had been various problems in the divorce proceedings, Mr. Bradley announced that his divorce was final. He proposed to Ms. Bradley. In 2007, the couple married in Las Vegas, Nevada. Ms. Bradley experienced two incidents of battery by Mr. Bradley before she checked previous domestic violence cases to see what his history was. The records revealed that Mr. Bradley’s divorce was not listed. Mr. Bradley confessed he had never obtained the divorce from his first wife. He and Ms. Bradley separated. Continue reading