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.

The Jackson v. Jackson (2025) case demonstrates the risks of proceeding pro se in divorce proceedings. Filing standard online responses without fully understanding them can unintentionally waive rights, leading to costly outcomes such as losing potential alimony.

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.