A Marital Settlement Agreement (MSA) is often used in Maryland divorce cases to resolve outstanding issues between the parties. An MSA may include an understanding regarding child custody arrangements, although the final decision on such matters is always in the hands of the court. While a judge is not strictly bound by a parental agreement on custody, an MSA will typically be given effect unless there is clear evidence the provisions would not serve the child’s best interests.

Judge Rejects Father’s Attempt to Rewrite Clause He Inserted Into MSA

Keep in mind, a MSA is a legal contract. This means that when drafting a settlement agreement, both parties need to choose their language carefully. You cannot agree to one thing in the text of the MSA and then later tell a judge that you really meant something different.

A recent decision from the Maryland Court of Special Appeals, Stock v. Stock, provides a cautionary tale on this point. The parties in this case married in 2011 and had one child. The parties then separated in 2018.

During divorce proceedings, the parents negotiated a MSA. The parties agreed that the mother would have sole physical custody of their child, with the father having certain visitation rights. The father also insisted on additional language, which the mother agreed to, stating, “If at any point [father] resides in the same school district as [mother], at that time physical custody will become joint … and visitation will be split evenly.”

The court incorporated the terms of the MSA, including the above-cited provision, into the final divorce decree. Ten days after the divorce became final, the father moved to a new home in Anne Arundel County, which was located about five miles from the mother’s residence and where the child attended school. The mother’s home was also located in Anne Arundel County, but it was actually in a different school district from the father’s new residence.

Nevertheless, the father filed a petition to modify the divorce judgment, citing the above language from the MSA. At a subsequent hearing, the father conceded that he did not technically meet the requirement that he live in the same school district as the mother. But he argued that he viewed the language as only requiring him to move to a home located in the same county as the mother, which he did.

The judge rejected this interpretation of the agreement. More to the point, the court found that the father’s move to Anne Arundel did not, by itself, justify a change in custody arrangements in the child’s “best interests.” (The court was also skeptical of the father’s motives, suggesting he inserted the language into the MSA to give himself a way out of paying child support.)

The Court of Special Appeals similarly rejected the father’s appeal. The appellate court noted the father’s request for modification was “narrowly predicated on the MSA and the proximity of his residence to the Child’s residence. Absent any other change in circumstances, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in upholding the existing custody arrangements.

Contact Waldorf Family Law Attorney Robert Castro Today

This article has been provided by the Law Office of Robert Castro. For more information or questions contact our office to speak to an experienced lawyer at (301) 870-1200.

Source:

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8977052909915365787