Divorce

Dividing military retirement benefits is far more complicated than dividing other marital property in Maryland. Recent cases like Howell v. Howell and Hurt v. Jones-Hurt highlight how federal disability pay can change what a former spouse actually receives after divorce.

In Pattison v. Pattison (2024), the Maryland Supreme Court reinforced that marital settlement agreements are governed by traditional contract principles. The court held that a property settlement offer with a set deadline is revoked if not accepted on time, and late acceptance does not validate the agreement. This case highlights the importance of clear contract language and competent legal counsel in marital agreements.

In Sims v. Sims (2024), the court addressed errors in classifying assets acquired after separation but before the divorce decree. The trial court mistakenly treated such assets as non-marital, affecting alimony and property awards. The appellate court remanded the case, emphasizing that proper classification of marital vs. non-marital assets is essential for equitable distribution in Maryland.

Bigamy, though rare, occurs when someone marries again while still legally married to another. In Peete v. Peete (2023), a first wife challenged her ex-husband’s second marriage decades later, after a divorce judgment was vacated for improper service. Ultimately, the appellate court found she had standing but denied her annulment claim because her motive was purely financial gain.

In Maryland, parties can freely move to revise a final judgment within 30 days, but after that, changes generally require showing fraud, mistake, or irregularity. In Smith v. Smith (2025), the appellate court reinforced this finality principle, ruling that the husband’s attempt to revise a 1999 divorce order decades later was untimely. This case highlights how strictly Maryland courts uphold the finality of judgments.

In Nakhostin v. Nakhostin (2024), the Maryland court rejected a wife’s request for indefinite alimony and initially awarded rehabilitative alimony. The appellate court overturned this award because the wife did not need training or education to become self-supporting—she simply earned less. The case underscores strict criteria for awarding rehabilitative or indefinite alimony in Maryland.

Maryland courts most often award rehabilitative alimony, meant to help a spouse become self-supporting through education or training. Indefinite alimony is rarely granted and only when a spouse cannot achieve a reasonable standard of living or the income gap is unconscionably large. Alimony must be claimed before divorce finalization, though spouses can agree privately through prenuptial or postnuptial agreements.

Maryland is an equitable distribution state, dividing only marital property in a manner considered fair, which isn’t always equal. Factors like dissipation of assets, cruelty, and income imbalance can lead courts to award an unequal share. Spouses can also bypass court division by creating private agreements, such as prenuptial, postnuptial, or marital settlement agreements.

In Maryland divorces, only marital property—not separate property—is subject to equitable distribution, focusing on fairness rather than equal division. Business owners can protect their assets by using prenuptial or postnuptial agreements to keep business assets separate. Holding assets within a business entity characterized as separate property can further shield them during property division.

In Mathew v. Mathew (2024), the Maryland appellate court addressed the issue of “Crawford credits” in property division during divorce. Although the husband was solely responsible for paying expenses on the marital home while having exclusive occupancy, his request for credit was denied because he made the payments with marital funds, meaning the wife already shared the financial burden.

In divorce litigation, disputes often extend beyond substantive issues to procedural battles, as seen in the recent Maryland case Atkins v. Wheeler (2025). Here, the husband challenged the wife’s choice of counsel, alleging a conflict of interest because her attorney worked at the same firm as a lawyer who previously represented the couple in an unrelated property damage case.

The recent Maryland case Murray v. Murray, Jr. (2024) highlights the dangers of relying on fringe legal theories in family law litigation. After refusing to comply with a marital settlement agreement, the wife invoked sovereign citizen ideology to block the sale of the marital home—an argument the court swiftly rejected. The case serves as a cautionary tale for parties tempted to use baseless legal tactics.

In Allred v. Allred (2019), the parties agreed to divide retirement benefits via a marital settlement agreement, including an “investment experience” clause. The appellate court reversed the trial court’s interpretation, finding that the investment experience ended on the date of the divorce judgment, as clearly stated in the agreement. This case highlights the importance of contract clarity and deference to plain language in divorce settlements.

Military divorces often involve the complex division of retirement benefits under the USFSPA and federal law. In Fulgium v. Fulgium (2019), the appellate court found that the trial court erred in calculating the wife's share of military retirement pay due to mathematical inaccuracies and a misapplication of the NDAA 2017. The case was remanded for recalculation in compliance with federal standards and limitations.

Indefinite alimony is awarded under a stricter standard than rehabilitative alimony and is reserved for cases of unconscionable disparity or other serious factors. In K.B. v. D.B. (2020), the appellate court overturned the trial court’s denial of indefinite alimony, emphasizing the massive income gap between the spouses. The ruling clarified that premarital earnings and marital duration must be weighed appropriately in alimony determinations.