Divorce

In Mergner v. Mergner (2025), the court ruled that a wife who accepted benefits from a trust could not later invalidate the agreement she signed, which waived her right to additional claims against her husband’s assets. This case highlights how contract law prevents parties from acting unfairly or dishonestly after benefiting from an agreement.

Ignoring divorce proceedings can have serious financial and legal consequences. In Hollis v. Hollis (2025), a mother in Annapolis failed to comply with reasonable discovery requests during litigation. As a result, the court denied her monetary awards and ordered her to pay $6,600 in attorney’s fees to the father. The appellate court upheld this ruling, emphasizing that courts consider financial capabilities and justified legal expenses when awarding fees. This case highlights that failing to participate in legal proceedings can lead to unnecessary penalties.

In C.M. v. J.M. (2023), a Maryland appellate court upheld a protective order restricting a father’s communication with his 13-year-old son, who was questioning his sexuality and gender identity. The father’s anti-LGBTQ+ statements and messages were found to have caused mental harm to the child. The father appealed, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to justify the protective order. However, the appellate court ruled that electronic and verbal evidence, along with the child’s psychological distress, constituted a valid basis for the protective order.

In Nolan v. Nolan (2023), a Maryland judge exercised broad equitable powers in dividing the proceeds of a court-ordered sale of a marital home. While both spouses received equal shares of the net proceeds, the judge allocated trustee fees solely to the wife, leading to her appeal. The appellate court upheld the trial court’s decision, emphasizing that Maryland courts have discretionary power to ensure equitable property division, which may include unequal allocations of costs.

Settlement agreements in Maryland are treated like standard contracts, meaning ambiguities can lead to additional litigation. In Dixon v. Dixon (2024), a dispute arose over pension division due to unclear wording in the agreement. The wife argued for payments starting from the husband's 2019 retirement, while the husband contended they should begin after the 2022 divorce.

The divorce of Bill and Melinda Gates highlights key aspects of high-profile dissolutions. Filed in Washington under the "irretrievably broken" standard, their case contrasts with Maryland’s no-fault divorce, which requires a 12-month separation. Despite its procedural simplicity, the division of their vast wealth posed significant challenges.

New relationships before divorce are finalized present legal and financial challenges, particularly in Maryland. While legally permissible, such relationships can lead to allegations of dissipation of assets if marital funds are spent on a new partner. Adultery claims may also impact divorce proceedings, potentially influencing property division.

Contempt of court in Maryland can be criminal or civil, with direct and constructive forms of each. In Stoltz v. Stoltz (2024), a husband was cited for contempt after issuing a $100,000 check to his wife with a stop payment, preventing her from cashing it. However, the case was ruled as improper because the settlement agreement had not yet been integrated into a formal court order at the time.

A Power of Attorney (POA) allows the principal to grant decision-making authority to an attorney in fact for various purposes, such as health or financial decisions. In Maryland, there are strict technical requirements to create a valid POA, such as witness and notary requirements, capacity, and residency. Additionally, the attorney in fact has a fiduciary duty to act in the principal's best interest and must keep records of all transactions.

The case of Richardson v. Richardson (2024) underscores the critical importance of adhering to procedural deadlines in Maryland family law cases. After agreeing to give his wife 30% of his retirement benefits as part of their divorce settlement, the husband later sought to challenge the agreement. However, his motions for reconsideration and to alter or amend judgment, as well as his appeal, were all dismissed because they were filed after the strict deadlines.

Indefinite alimony, or spousal maintenance without a fixed end date, can be modified or terminated in Maryland if a “material change” in circumstances arises, and the alteration is necessary to prevent unfairness. A recent case highlighted this, where a husband successfully terminated his indefinite alimony payments after retiring and experiencing a significant income drop

Ashley Darby, star of Real Housewives of Potomac, recently finalized her divorce from Michael Darby. Despite the challenges often associated with high-profile divorces, their case is an example of an amicable separation. The couple's prenuptial agreement played a crucial role in avoiding contentious property disputes, and their mutual agreement on custody arrangements ensured a smoother process. By addressing potential conflicts with foresight and cooperation, their divorce highlights the benefits of prenuptial agreements and collaborative approaches to custody issues.

Spouses in Maryland are encouraged to resolve marital disputes through settlement agreements, as they provide cost-efficiency and reduce stress. However, Maryland residents should be aware that certain terms in a settlement agreement may be overridden if they conflict with federal laws. The case In the Matter of Batchelor (2022) illustrates how federal preemption can impact the distribution of retirement benefits.

Hiring an attorney for complex legal matters like divorce or estate planning is essential due to the complexities involved. Understanding retainer agreements and trust replenishment is key, as they outline the initial deposit, hourly rates, and payment structure. These agreements ensure both the client and attorney have a clear understanding of expectations and compensation.

The Loar v. Loar (2020) case demonstrates how Maryland courts apply the principle of "good faith" and reasonable behavior in marital agreements, similar to other contracts. In this case, the husband's failure to provide a timely appraisal, despite no technical contract violation, was deemed unreasonable, leading the appellate court to overturn the trial court's decision and enforce the sale.