Divorce

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