Property division in a Maryland divorce case follows the rule of “equitable distribution.” Equitable does not always mean equal. Instead, the court must follow a three-step process. First, the judge will determine what assets are actually marital property. Second, the court must determine the value of all marital property. Third, the court will issue a “monetary award,” i.e., an order directing one spouse to compensate the other in order to effect an equitable distribution.

In considering a monetary award, Maryland law requires the court to look at roughly a dozen factors, including the length of the marriage, each party’s monetary (and non-monetary) contributions to the marriage, and even the circumstances that led to the divorce. No single factor is controlling, and the judge is not required to go down each item as if it were a checklist. The ultimate goal is to ensure a “fair” award.

Appellate Court Rejects Husband’s Appeal of $15,000 Monetary Award

To illustrate how these factors are applied in practice, consider this recent case from the Maryland Court of Special Appeals, Nying v. Nying. This case involved a couple that married in 1997. The parties separated in early 2014 and the wife filed for divorce later that same year on grounds of desertion. The husband countersued, accusing the wife of adultery. A Maryland circuit court tried the case in 2019.

After considering all of the statutory factors, the judge ordered the husband to pay the wife $15,000 as a monetary award. On appeal, the husband argued that the award was “manifestly unfair.” More precisely, the husband argued that the trial judge “failed to appropriately consider” several of the statutory factors, including his contributions to the marriage, his wife’s alleged adultery, and “gave too much weight” to his decision to take a job in China during the marriage.

The Court of Special Appeals rejected these arguments and held the trial court “carefully considered” all of the necessary factors. For example, the trial judge found that both parties made “significant monetary contributions” to the marriage, but the husband’s non-monetary contribution was “limited” to family vacations and occasionally helping the couple’s children with their homework. In contrast, the wife made much more substantial non-monetary contributions, i.e., taking care of the children and the house. The trial court also cited the husband’s “inability to account for $60,000” that he withdrew from the couple’s joint bank accounts. As for what caused the divorce–the husband’s job or the wife’s adultery–the appellate court said that it was a question of fact that the trial judge decided in favor of the wife. It was not the place of the appellate court to “re-weigh” the credibility of the witnesses. The judge’s $15,000 monetary award therefore stood.

Contact La Plata, Maryland, 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=13669412271069603290