Justia Lawyer Rating
MSBA
United States District Court for the District of Maryland
AILA 2024 Member
ABA
Bar Association of Montgomery County, Maryland

| by

Maryland has a strong policy supporting child support payments. Typically a custodial parent can ask to have the other parent’s wages garnished when the other parent fails to pay court-mandated child support. However, not all of the other parent’s funds can be garnished to pay off child support arrearages. In a 2010 case, a male custodial parent of two minors tried to garnish funds held by his wife’ s law firm. The money held by the law firm was compensation for a personal injury.

The Circuit Court held that money recovered from a personal injury lawsuit is exempt from garnishment. The ex-husband appealed. The Court of Special Appeals affirmed. The Court of Appeals reviewed the question of whether the personal injury settlement money is exempt from execution on a judgment.

The couple had married in 1985 and, after having two children, got a divorce. The court at that time did not provide for child support. A few years later, however, the mother was ordered to pay child support in the amount of $533.61 every month to the father who was the custodial parent. Continue reading

| by

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

| by

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

| by

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

| by

Maryland separation agreements can waive the parties’ right to have the court assume jurisdiction over modifications to spousal support. Removing the court’s power to modify a separation agreement can prove problematic in the event that one of the parties regrets the terms of the original separation agreement.

In a 2010 case, a husband and wife were married for about 32 years before getting a divorce. They agreed through a separation agreement that the husband would pay permanent alimony of $4000 per month until he terminated his employment at which point the wife would continue to get 50% of his post-employment income.

The couple agreed to waive the right to have the agreement modified. In exchange for permanent alimony, the wife waived her interest in a particular property. They also agreed that the alimony provision of the agreement would be merged into the divorce decree. Continue reading

| by

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

| by

Allegations of sexual, physical or emotional abuse are taken very seriously in Maryland child custody cases. The child’s best interests are of primary importance. In a recent case, the parents’ custody of a fourteen-year-old was modified after the mother learned of sexual abuse allegations in the context of the father and her niece. The parents’ relationship began in 1993 when they were teenagers. Though they did not marry, they bore a daughter six years later. They ended their relationship in 2001. The mother had another child with another father.

The mother said that during their relationship the father was abusive towards her, calling her “crazy,” “nutcase,” “whore” and throwing her down the stairs, locking her in the cold and choking her. In one altercation, the father had pushed both the mother and a third party, resulting in the police being called and the mother getting a protective order against the father for a year.

Three years after their relationship ended, the parents entered into a custody arrangement and a few years after that, the mother was granted primary physical custody. However, the father had visitation on alternate weekends and on certain holidays and they shared legal custody. Continue reading

| by

Recently, the Maryland appellate court ruled in the case of a father who appealed the finding that his child was a child in need of assistance (“CINA”). The master had recommended this finding to the court after a hearing in which it was shown that the mother and father failed to give their daughter an emotionally or physically safe environment. The court ordered that temporary custody of the child be given to the child’s maternal grandmother and a couple who had cared for the child in the past and in the present.

The master and the court had discovered some disturbing facts from a Department of Social Services (DSS) investigator before the CINA order was issued. The family lived in a trailer that needed to be repaired. The daughter had lost weight, had been left home alone with the family dog, needed medical care she did not receive, and was in an environment of regular domestic violence and alcohol and drug abuse.

DSS had learned of this family because the daughter had tested positive for the presence of cocaine when she was born. This meant that she was presumed to be not receiving proper care from her mother for one year after her birth and was a CINA. Continue reading

| by

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

| by

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

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