Divorce

In Noutchang v. Feutcha (2019), the Maryland court upheld a trial court's decision to award a significant share of appreciated real estate value to the wife, despite the husband's argument that the appreciation was largely due to natural market forces. The court found that the appreciation was marital property, partially because marital funds were used for renovations and the wife contributed significantly to other household expenses. The husband’s claim of abuse of discretion was rejected by the appellate court.

Prenuptial agreements function similarly to other contracts, requiring clear terms and voluntary acceptance. However, they can be rendered unenforceable if signed under fraud, duress, or coercion, as these elements undermine the agreement's validity. Just like any other contract, prenuptial agreements must be based on informed and voluntary consent from both parties.

In De Koomen v. De Koomen (2019), a wife discovered her ex-husband had hidden assets during their divorce, breaching their settlement agreement. The appellate court upheld the dismissal of her attempt to reopen the divorce but allowed her to pursue a breach of contract claim based on intrinsic fraud. The claim was considered viable despite being made 12 years post-divorce.

In Maryland, proceeding "pro se" (without legal representation) in divorce cases can pose significant risks, as seen in Timachev v. Lobas (2019). The husband's failure to appear at a critical court hearing to contest his ex-wife's claims led to adverse consequences. Despite attempting to raise defenses and present documentation before a magistrate, his failure to follow up with formal court appearances or legal representation resulted in the judge issuing a final order in favor of his ex-wife based on the magistrate's recommendations.

In proceeding with a divorce without legal counsel, litigants should consider the significant risks they assume, particularly in agreeing to terms like those in a marital settlement agreement. The case of Elyassi v. Sutton (2018) illustrates the dangers: the ex-wife signed a post-judgment agreement without legal representation, including a clause making the agreement unappealable.

Lane v. Lane examines the impact of marital reconciliation on a previously established separation agreement in Maryland. The court ruled that the couple's post-reconciliation behavior nullified the terms of their earlier agreement, emphasizing the contextual nuances in such cases.

Abraham Lincoln famously stated, "A person who represents himself has a fool for a client." The case of Kapustin v. Lugovkin (2018) illustrates the pitfalls of self-representation, or going pro se, in legal matters. The father, representing himself in a custody dispute, made critical procedural and substantive errors, leading to his loss at trial and on appeal. This case underscores the complexities of the legal system and the importance of professional legal representation.

In Miller v. Chapman, Jr. (2019), a judge issued an incorrect punishment for a mother's alleged contempt of court in a custody dispute, leading to the appellate division overturning the decision. The appellate court clarified that for constructive civil contempt in Maryland, compliance with the order within a specific timeframe negates the contempt charge, as demonstrated by the mother's adherence to the order for over 60 days without further violations.

Maryland's alimony laws consider various factors beyond just income discrepancy when determining awards, as demonstrated in the case of Matcha v. Bersoff-Matcha, where a high-earning physician avoided paying alimony despite earning significantly more than her husband. The court's decision was influenced by doubts about the husband's income claims and transparency regarding his financial situation.

In the case of Huang v. Zheng (2017), a default judgment was entered in favor of the father when the mother failed to respond to the divorce petition. Despite later filing an appeal, the court upheld the default judgment due to the expiration of the 30-day deadline, awarding custody, child support, and a monetary sum to the father.

In the case of Harnish v. Harnish (2017), a marital settlement agreement heavily skewed in favor of one spouse was invalidated by the court due to substantive unconscionability, highlighting the importance of fairness and reasonableness in such agreements under contract law principles.

In Martin v. Dolet (2019), despite a marital settlement agreement granting sole ownership of a house to the husband, the court ordered its sale when the wife failed to uphold the agreement terms. The appellate division upheld the decision, emphasizing the need for written documentation to establish ownership and the court's discretion in ensuring fair asset distribution in divorce cases.

The case of Jevaji v. Nagavalli (2019) illustrates the concept of dissipation of assets in divorce proceedings. The wife successfully proved that the husband had spent $161,000 on non-marital purposes, such as gambling and nightclub expenses, during the period leading up to their divorce filing. The court ordered the husband to repay half of this amount, totaling $80,500, to the wife as compensation for the dissipation of marital assets.

In Piedharita v. Piedharita (2019), a marriage marked by significant earning capacity disparity raised questions about the enforceability of the settlement agreement. The appellate division ordered a new trial, acknowledging the existence of a confidential relationship due to the dominant/dependent dynamic between the spouses. This ruling underscores the heightened scrutiny applied to settlement agreements in such relationships, reflecting unequal power dynamics.

In Meus Sr. v. Meus (2019), a husband attempted to unilaterally revoke child support terms from a marital settlement agreement but was unsuccessful. Despite his objections post-judgment, the appellate division ruled against him, emphasizing his prior clear approval of the agreement's terms during trial. The case underscores the importance of fully understanding and committing to settlement terms, as they cannot be unilaterally revoked without exceptional circumstances.