.webp)
.png)
When it comes to dividing property between spouses in a divorce, courts can do many different things to ensure that marital assets are distributed equitably. One thing which a Maryland court can do is order the sale of a marital home. In some cases, ordering a marital home to be sold is the only way(or, the best way) to guarantee that each spouse receives a fair share of the marital assets. However, simply because a court has the power to order such a sale doesn’t mean that spouses always agree to or desire this type of sale. Occasionally, one spouse objects when the court orders the sale of a marital home, and the objection may stem from various grounds. Spouses sometimes believe that the real estate market is unfavorable such that a sale would be altogether undesirable; in other cases, the marital home may sentimental value. Whatever the ground for objection may be, spouses do have the ability to contest the ordering of such a sale by the court, provided that they comply with certain rules.
In the case of Apatu v. Apatu (2019), one spouse objected to the sale of a marital home because he felt that the sale was inadequately completed. Furthermore, he contendedthat the sale should not have been approved at all, and should’ve been deniedeven on more favorable terms. Let’s look at this case more closely to get a sense of how court-ordered sales operate.
Overview of the Case
The couple in this case owned a home which was on the brink of foreclosure at the time of the divorce. The trial court judge ordered that the marital home be sold, and that the proceeds of the court-ordered sale be divided 50% / 50%. The house was appraised, then sold at a price which was slightly higher than the appraisal (but slightly lower than the original listing price); $5,000 was credited from the sellers to the buyer for closing costs, and then 5% was taken out for the broker’s commission. A trustee was appointed to oversee the sale, and the house sold just two months after this appointment. The husband in the case objected to the sale on multiple grounds. For one, he attempted to stop the sale from going through initially because he believed that the original appraisal was too low. The husband also believed that the seller’s credit and commissions were too high. The trial judge rejected these positions and ordered that the sale go through, as planned.
The husband then filed an appeal and the case went before the appellate division for review. The husband put forth two arguments for consideration on appeal: (1) that the challenge to the sale should have been at least been given a hearing to determine its merits, and (2) that the sale of the home was clearly erroneous based on all the available evidence.
Outcome & Discussion
The husband lost both of his arguments on appeal. For one, the appellate division concluded that the denial of a hearing to a challenge isn’t necessarily outside the power accorded to a trial court judge in Maryland. The appellate division noted that a hearing is only required when the evidence demands that such a hearing take place, and that whether such a demand exists is something to be decided ultimately by the judge. Next, the appellate division concluded that all the facts and circumstances in the case pointed to the fact that the sale was necessary. Given that the home was nearing foreclosure, and that the original appraisal was very close to the appraisal argued by the husband, the court found no reason to rule that the ordering of the sale was unreasonable.
Contact the Murphy Law Firm for More Information
If you would like more information on court-ordered sales in the divorce process, property division, or another related matter, reach out to one of the family law attorneys at the Murphy Law Firm today by calling 240-219-9311.
.png)
