Rosemann v. Salsbury Clements (2010): Personal Injury Settlements

Out of all the issues involved in family law, one of the most important is child support. Children need resources in order to grow and thrive, and child support is fundamentally concerned with satisfying this need. Furthermore, the State of Maryland, just like other states across the nation, holds that biological parents have a financial obligation to their children, and so the law on child support (and child support enforcement) has been shaped in accordance with this stance. Hence, if a parent fails to satisfy his or her child support payment obligations, the state can take drastic measures to rectify this situation.
In many cases, determining and enforcing child support payments is straightforward, but some instances are a bit more tricky. For instance, in some scenarios, there may be a question of whether certain income is attachable. That’s the issue that came up in Rosemann v. Salsbury Clements (2010). Let’s examine that case in a bit of detail.

Overview of the Case

The couple in this case married in 1985 and then divorced after having two children. The husband received primary custody of the children, while the wife became the noncustodial parent. The wife was instructed to pay child support to the custodial husband; at some point, she fell behind on her payments, and ultimately a sizable arrearage arose. The wife suffered an injury in an airplane incident and obtained a settlement with the assistance of a law firm. In total, the wife received $30,000 from her settlement. The husband wanted to attach the settlement funds in order to satisfy the wife’s child support arrearages, but the wife refused and argued that such funds were off-limits for child support. The husband eventually moved the court to make a determination on this issue.

Outcome & Discussion

The case went all the way to the Court of Appeals in Maryland. Initially, the husband failed at the trial court level, and then this decision (in favor of the wife) was upheld on appeal. The final court had to address the issue: are funds from a personal injury settlement eligible for attachment for the purposes of satisfying a back child support obligation? In other words, is this type of income eligible for garnishment? In some cases, the court may take measures to compel payment or collect back child support arrearages, and one measure the court can take is garnishment. However, not all forms of income may be used for these purposes, as certain types of income – such as payments for injuries or illness – are considered “protected” or ineligible for attachment by the court. So, the appellate court had to decide whether personal injury settlement funds were attachable. Ultimately, the court in this case determined that such funds are not attachable, because they fall within the plain language in the statute. Income derived from injuries is supposed to be off-limits, and that is precisely the type of income that was under review.

Contact the Murphy Law Firm for More Information

If you want to learn more, or if you have a family law matter to discuss, reach out to one of the leading family law attorneys at the Murphy Law Firm today by calling 240-219-9311.

‍