Divorce

Timing can be just as critical as substance in settlement agreements, particularly when offers include firm acceptance deadlines. Pattison v. Pattison (2025) reaffirmed that failing to accept a settlement offer by its stated deadline constitutes a rejection under basic contract law principles. The case highlights how family law courts apply contract doctrines strictly and underscores the importance of understanding offer-and-acceptance rules during divorce negotiations.

Alimony determinations in Maryland involve complex, multi-factor analyses and often generate strong, differing opinions. Courts weigh primary financial factors—such as income, assets, and earning capacity—alongside secondary considerations like marriage length, health, and standard of living. Ultimately, judges conduct a global, case-specific review to reach a fair outcome, with alimony awards remaining subject to appeal or future modification.

Washington, D.C. applies an equitable distribution framework to marital property, with statutory rules that share similarities with other jurisdictions but include unique features. D.C. law defines marital property broadly, including property held as tenants by the entirety and most assets acquired during marriage, subject to specific exceptions. After classification, courts consider a wide range of marital factors to achieve a fair—not necessarily equal—distribution of property.

Uncontested divorce in Maryland, also known as divorce by mutual consent, allows spouses to obtain a divorce without a formal trial. This process requires full agreement on all divorce-related issues and submission of a comprehensive settlement agreement for court approval. Because disputes are resolved in advance, mutual consent divorce is designed to be a streamlined and more accessible option under Maryland law.

Maryland courts distinguish between rehabilitative alimony, which is temporary, and indefinite alimony, which is reserved for exceptional circumstances. Day v. Day (2025) illustrates a rare situation where a rehabilitative alimony award was overturned in favor of indefinite alimony. The decision emphasizes that serious, long-term health conditions may justify indefinite support when evidence shows a spouse is unlikely to become self-supporting.

Maryland is a no-fault divorce state, meaning a divorce may be granted without proving marital wrongdoing. Parties must still satisfy statutory grounds, most commonly separation, irreconcilable differences, or mutual consent. Each ground carries distinct requirements, making informed legal guidance important when pursuing a Maryland divorce.

Maryland follows the principle of equitable distribution, which focuses on fairness rather than an automatic equal split of marital property. Judges evaluate a wide range of factors—such as conduct during the marriage, financial contributions, and future earning capacity—to reach a reasonable outcome. Depending on the circumstances, marital assets may be unevenly divided, assigned directly to one party, or sold through court-ordered liquidation.

Delays between a divorce trial and the final judgment can be stressful, but Maryland law does not impose a strict deadline for issuing divorce rulings. Vu v. Dinh (2025) addressed whether an nearly eleven-month delay rendered a divorce judgment unreasonable or invalid. The court clarified that delay alone is insufficient to overturn a judgment without proof of actual, unreasonable harm caused by the delay.

Artificial intelligence is increasingly used in legal research, offering efficiency but also serious risks when relied upon without proper review. Mezu v. Mezu (2025) highlights the dangers of AI-generated “hallucinations,” where fictitious or irrelevant case citations appear in legal filings. The case underscores that attorneys remain fully responsible for due diligence and may face professional discipline for failing to verify AI-assisted research.

Unmarried cohabitants in Maryland do not have the same legal rights or protections as married couples, regardless of how long they live together. Although Maryland does not create common law marriages, it does recognize valid common law marriages formed in other states. To avoid future disputes, cohabitants should consider enforceable cohabitation contracts and ensure property is properly titled to reflect ownership intent.

Private settlement agreements often provide a more efficient and predictable alternative to litigation, particularly when disputes are resolved through arbitration. McCutcheon v. McCutcheon (2025) demonstrates how arbitration clauses in marital settlement agreements can govern future disputes over alimony. The case highlights that arbitrators have broad authority, and their rulings are difficult to overturn simply because one party is dissatisfied with the outcome.

Real estate is often co-owned through arrangements such as joint tenancy or tenancy-in-common, each carrying different legal consequences. In a Maryland divorce, courts must first determine whether co-owned real estate is marital, separate, or mixed property based on timing, titling, and use. Depending on this characterization, co-owned marital real estate may be divided, sold by court order, or addressed through private settlement agreements

Prenuptial agreements offer significant protection but are frequently contested during divorce when one party is dissatisfied with the outcome. Stewart v. Stewart (2013) illustrates that challenging enforceability based on disclosure or unconscionability requires meeting a high legal standard under Maryland law. The case reinforces that parties should fully understand and be comfortable with prenuptial terms before signing, as courts are reluctant to invalidate them without clear defects.

The recent case of Everngam-Price v. Price (2025) involved the granting of a lump sum monetary award to the husband. The court reviewed the factors involved in the process for determining awards under Section 8-205(b). The crux of the case was that the husband had accumulated a sizable retirement account which justified a monetary award.  

In Bergeris v. Bergeris (2014), the Maryland Court ruled that explicit telephone conversations do not constitute “cohabitation” under the state’s voluntary separation law for absolute divorce. The court clarified that physical separation remains intact despite telephonic intimacy. This case set an important precedent for interpreting separation and cohabitation in Maryland family law.