.webp)
.png)
Outside the world of law, the term “technicality” is typically used to minimize the importance of something, to suggest that something is merely a formality without any underlying substance. While that meaning might make sense outside of law, technicalities inside the world of law are often not things to take lightly. In fact, often the outcome of a case may be decided on the basis of a technicality; in other words, in law, technicalities can literally change the whole direction of a case, they can transform an otherwise desirable outcome into an undesirable outcome. This was the case in Bellanca v. Grim(2018), a case which arose out of Anne Arundel county several years ago. In that case, the outcome hinged on whether one party could find evidence of extrinsic fraud, as opposed to intrinsic fraud. Let’s explore this case in detail.
Summary of Bellanca v. Grim (2018)
The couple in this case were married in 1997 and then separated in 2011 after 14 years of marriage. Later, in 2012, the former couple developed a private settlement agreement in which they resolved essentially all of the issues pertaining to the divorce, including child support, alimony and property division. To comply with Maryland’s child support guidelines, both parties made the requisite financial disclosures within the settlement agreement. When the ex-wife later examined the ex-husband’s financial situation in more detail, she found that the ex-husband’s employer had allowed him to defer income from 2012 to 2013. By deferring this income, the husband was able to leave out a substantial amount of income from the settlement agreement. Importantly, the wife made this discovery after the settlement agreement had already been accepted by the court and integrated into the divorce judgment. She tried to “enforce the settlement agreement” by arguing that the husband’s deferred income constituted fraud, and that this deferred income should’ve been included in the agreement.
Because the settlement agreement had already been adjudicated, the court interpreted the wife’s motion as a motion to “revise a judgment.” To revise a judgment in this way, the court needed to see evidence of “extrinsic fraud.” The wife lost at the trial court level and then appealed.
Outcome & Discussion
The appellate division reviewed the case and ruled against the wife. In its ruling, the appellate division spelled out the distinction between intrinsic fraud and extrinsic fraud, and reiterated the fact that a motion seeking to revise a judgment needed to be based on evidence of extrinsic fraud. As the court defined it, extrinsic fraud is fraud which literally prevents the underlying dispute from being able to be reviewed by a factfinder. In this situation, extrinsic fraud was not present, and so the wife’s case was defeated. Again, as discussed above, this type of situation may seem as though it rested on a “technicality,” but since this is a legal context, technicalities can be extremely important. Awareness of these types of technicalities can transform the outcome of a given case. This is why having an experienced family law attorney is critical.
Contact the Murphy Law Firm for Additional Information
If you would like to know more about divorce fraud, or another family law topic, connect with one of the attorneys at the Murphy Law Firm today by calling 240-219-8963.
.png)
