.webp)
.png)
Court-ordered sales are not necessarily common, but they do happen sometimes in the Maryland family court system. Courts will sometimes order a sale (of a marital home) for the purpose of ensuring an equitable solution to a given problem. There may be any number of circumstances which arise which require that a marital home be sold to ensure fairness. The case of Martin v. Dolet (2019) gives one set off acts in which a court found it necessary to make such an order.
As we will see, this case shows us that marital settlement agreements aren’t always as ironclad as people would like to suppose. When spouses create settlement agreements, the hope is that these agreements will put an end to property related disputes and impose a sense of finality to the dissolution. This doesn’t always happen, however, because sometimes spouses go against the terms of the agreement. If a spouse goes against the terms of the agreement, courts often step in and provide a remedy. Let’s look at this case in greater depth.
Overview of the Case
The couple in this case purchased a house in Bowie after marriage. In 2004, the couple separated, and the husband continued to remain in the Bowie house while the wife acquired an apartment in Silver Spring. The couple was divorced in 2013, but prior to the final divorce order, the couple was able to develop a marital settlement agreement which formally addressed the house in Bowie. The settlement agreement held that the husband would have sole ownership of the Bowie residence, and this sole ownership came with responsibility for the mortgage payments, taxes, insurance, and upkeep. This settlement agreement was integrated into the final divorce judgment, giving the husband sole ownership of the Bowie house.
Five months later, the husband moved out of the Bowie house and the wife moved in. Allegedly, the wife agreed to assume the responsibilities of the house, including the mortgage payment and the other costs. The wife then fell behind on the payments, and the husband stated that he had to spend $5,000 of his own funds to prevent the mortgage from defaulting. The husband then went to court and argued that the court should order the Bowie house to be sold in order to provide fairness regarding the division of the marital assets. The trial court agreed and ordered the sale of the house. The wife then appealed that determination.
Outcome & Discussion
The wife argued that she had gained firm ownership of the house when the husband transferred the property to her and gave an oral representation that she had ownership. The appellate division rejected this argument. The appellate division found that the trial court was well within its discretion in ordering the sale of the house to ensure fair distribution of marital assets. Furthermore, the appellate division noted that the wife needed to have a written contract or other documentation in order to have ownership of the house. The oral promise between the husband and the wife was simply not enough to overcome the trial court’s determination. In these instances, when courts are trying to ensure a fair distribution of marital assets, there needs to be more evidence that the trial court did something abusive in order to overcome the judgment. In this situation, the wife didn’t produce evidence of abuse of discretion, she simply objected to the outcome, as she wanted to retain possession of the Bowie house.
Connect with the Murphy Law Firm for Additional Information
If you would like more information on the sale of marital homes, division of marital property, or another related topic, don’t hesitate to reach out to one of the family law attorneys at the Murphy Law Firm today by calling 240-219-8825.
.png)
