Divorce

In Pattison v. Pattison (2023), the Maryland appellate court addressed the issue of acceptance deadlines in marital settlement agreements, treating them as contracts governed by basic contract principles. The case involved a wife who set a deadline for the husband's acceptance of a settlement offer. The husband signed after the deadline, but the court ruled his acceptance invalid, equating it to accepting a revoked offer.

Postnuptial agreements, developed after marriage, are a commonly used legal tool in Maryland to address financial concerns and predetermine divorce-related outcomes. Unlike prenuptial agreements, postnuptials often have a clearer financial basis due to changes after marriage and may carry less social stigma.

Prenuptial agreements, similar to ordinary contracts, can include provisions for alimony. Many Maryland residents misunderstand these agreements, viewing them as tools for the wealthy or different from standard contracts. The purpose of prenuptial agreements is to resolve issues privately and avoid court involvement.

Private settlement agreements in divorce cases can be beneficial for resolving property division, but they must be clear and unambiguous to avoid disputes. In Bohling v. Segree (2022), a dispute arose over the vesting time of the husband's corporate stock in a settlement agreement. The wife claimed $403,000, but the husband paid only $249,000, leading to a motion for contempt. The husband argued for an earlier vesting time using parol evidence, but the appellate court found the agreement clear, requiring the husband to pay the additional $154,000.

In Maryland, a divorce decree requires "personal jurisdiction" over both parties, which can be met in various ways. Due to Maryland's proximity to other states, personal jurisdiction often becomes a contested issue. The case of Green v. Green (2024) from Colorado provides guidance on such issues, emphasizing that personal jurisdiction requires domicile in the state. Maryland courts can infer personal jurisdiction through sufficient minimum contacts, such as working or conducting business in the state, or through voluntary consent.

Dissipation of assets in Maryland occurs when one spouse uses marital funds without the other spouse's consent, particularly when a divorce is imminent or anticipated. This can take various forms, including hiding assets, selfish spending (e.g., on an extramarital affair), reckless investments, or giving away marital property as gifts. Courts can intervene and provide remedies if the innocent spouse can prove dissipation occurred.

In Hencken v. Hencken (2020), a wife was found in contempt of court for failing to transfer personal property awarded to her husband in a divorce judgment. However, the contempt finding was overturned due to a procedural defect during the hearing, where the judge failed to confirm that the wife knowingly and voluntarily chose to proceed without legal representation. This case underscores the importance of following proper procedures in contempt hearings and highlights the potential for contempt findings to be overturned if procedural requirements are not met.

In Gaines v. Gaines (2020), a husband proceeding without legal counsel agreed to a divorce settlement that heavily favored his wife. Despite the husband's later realization of the unfavorable terms, the court upheld the agreement, emphasizing the importance of obtaining legal counsel in divorce cases to avoid poorly negotiated outcomes. This case highlights the risks of proceeding pro se, even in seemingly straightforward divorces.

In Levengood v. Inwood (2021), a two-year marriage involved the husband rolling over his pre-marital 401(k) funds into a joint account, leading to a dispute over whether these funds remained separate or became marital property. The court ruled that by commingling the 401(k) funds with marital assets, the husband effectively converted a portion of the funds into marital property, entitling the wife to a share. This case illustrates the complexities of property division, especially when separate assets are mixed with marital funds.

In McCotter-Jacobs v. Jacobs (2019), both parties proceeded without legal counsel in a divorce trial, leading to unfavorable outcomes for the wife. The trial court awarded the husband 15% of the wife’s pension and full ownership of the marital home. On appeal, the wife argued the husband hadn't specifically requested these awards, but the appellate court upheld the trial court's decision. This case highlights the importance of hiring a skilled attorney in family law cases to avoid critical errors and increase the chances of a favorable outcome.

In the case of Jiggetts v. Jiggetts (2019), the husband regretted signing a settlement agreement that required him to give his ex-wife 1/3rd of a $32.5 million personal injury award. He attempted to challenge the enforceability of the agreement, arguing that the divorce judgment contained irregularities. However, the court upheld the agreement, finding no evidence of fraud, duress, or coercion.

In Helal v. Helal (2019), a prenuptial agreement was declared unenforceable due to the wife's limited understanding of English and lack of proper translation, combined with the timing of the agreement just one week before the wedding. The court found that these factors pointed to a lack of genuine acceptance and improper coercion, which rendered the agreement invalid. This case underscores the importance of voluntary and informed consent in prenuptial agreements.

In Noutchang v. Feutcha (2019), the Maryland court upheld a trial court's decision to award a significant share of appreciated real estate value to the wife, despite the husband's argument that the appreciation was largely due to natural market forces. The court found that the appreciation was marital property, partially because marital funds were used for renovations and the wife contributed significantly to other household expenses. The husband’s claim of abuse of discretion was rejected by the appellate court.

Prenuptial agreements function similarly to other contracts, requiring clear terms and voluntary acceptance. However, they can be rendered unenforceable if signed under fraud, duress, or coercion, as these elements undermine the agreement's validity. Just like any other contract, prenuptial agreements must be based on informed and voluntary consent from both parties.

In De Koomen v. De Koomen (2019), a wife discovered her ex-husband had hidden assets during their divorce, breaching their settlement agreement. The appellate court upheld the dismissal of her attempt to reopen the divorce but allowed her to pursue a breach of contract claim based on intrinsic fraud. The claim was considered viable despite being made 12 years post-divorce.