Guidash v. Tome (2013) & the Bargaining of Child Support

Published on
February 2, 2024
Written by
Angel Murphy, Esq
Category
Custody and Child Support

Divorce is one of the most contentious things in our society. During divorce proceedings, couples frequently engage in disputes over numerous matters, including custody of children, division of the family home, allocation of vehicles, and determination of child support. In fact, few things can cause a person to “sink low” like a divorce; it’s not uncommon for otherwise very reasonable, level-headed people to begin acting like grown-up children when they experience a marital dissolution. In many ways, the role of the court – and also, attorneys – is to provide a mature, rational influence in this highly emotionally-charged situation.

Child support is one of the things which is the least likely to be “fought over” in the context of divorce. The reason for this is mainly because child support is about the children, not the parents. Nearly every citizen in our society agrees that biological parents have a financial obligation to their children, and the law on child support is very much consistent with this view. In the case of Guidash v. Tome (2013), an issue arose regarding the circumstances under which child support may be “bargained away” in a private separation agreement. Let’s review the facts and outcome of this important case.

Overview of the Case

The couple married in 1991 and separated in 2001. When the couple agreed to divorce, they developed a complex separation agreement which predetermined most aspects of the dissolution. They agreed to share joint legal and physical custody of the children; as for physical custody specifically, the mother would have the children for 4 days per week and the father would have the children for 3 days per week. The agreement also provided that the father would allow the mother to live in the marital home for 10 years; in addition, the father would pay the mother $25,000 in exchange for her interest in the home. At the end of the 10-year period, the mother would move out. The agreement also provided that the father would be exempt from paying child support because of this allowance to use the marital home. Finally, the agreement provided that the court didn’t have the ability to modify the agreement; hence, the father expected that he would never, at any point, be required to pay child support.

Outcome & Discussion

In 2011, the mother filed a motion with the court to modify the agreement. She requested that the agreement be modified such that the father would need to begin making child support payments for their 1 child who was still a minor (the couple had 2 children altogether). The mother argued that, because she was no longer living in the marital home, she was entitled to child support given that she now had to spend money to rent an apartment. The father argued that the non-modification provision of the agreement should stand. At trial, the mother was successful and the court determined that child support was not something which could be “bargained for” in the context of a private separation agreement. The father then appealed, and the appellate division upheld the lower court ruling. Essentially, child support is an obligation between a parent and a child; it’s not something which can be used as a bargaining chip in the context of property division disputes between the parents. Simply because the father allowed the mother to have access to the marital home didn’t “excuse” or remove his child support obligation.

Also, simply because the separation agreement included a non-modification provision doesn’t mean that child support could not be modified. This would’ve been true even if the agreement hadn’t bargained away child support to begin with. As a rule, the court always has the ability to modify child support, in accordance with established principles on modification.

Contact the Murphy Law Firm for More Information

If you would like to learn more about child support in the State of Maryland, or another matter, reach out to one of the leading family law attorneys at the Murphy Law Firm today by calling 240-219-8825.

Angel Murphy

Personable. Passionate. Persistent.

Child Support, Separation Agreement, Modification, Divorce, Child Support, Separation Agreement, Family Law, Court Ruling, Parental Obligations, Custody Arrangements, Legal Agreements, Property Disputes, Financial Consequences, Legal Proceedings, Appellate Division

Subscribe to our newsletter

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.

Articles & Resources

March 4, 2024

Rudnick v. Rudnick (2023) & Unconscionability in Maryland Prenuptial Agreements

In Rudnick v. Rudnick (2023), a prenuptial agreement signed in 1992 became the subject of dispute during the couple's divorce in 2019. The agreement, which prohibited the division of assets or alimony, was initially considered fair but was deemed unconscionable at the time of enforcement. Massachusetts law, where the case arose, applied an unconscionability analysis at the time of enforcement. The courts ruled in favor of the wife, highlighting the importance of skilled legal representation well-versed in relevant state laws.

April 1, 2024

Carrington v. Richards (2017) & the Role of Participation in Custody Modification

In Carrington v. Richards (2017), a custody battle turned tragic due to the mother's failure to participate in court proceedings. Initially seeking full custody of their son, the father was awarded sole custody when the mother failed to appear at the final hearing. Despite subsequent attempts to overturn the decision, the mother's non-compliance with court orders and absence from proceedings hindered her case. Ultimately, the father's custody was affirmed, but the case took a devastating turn when the mother shot and wounded the father. This case underscores the importance of active participation in custody proceedings and the serious consequences of non-compliance.

March 29, 2024

Wiles v. Wiles (2017) & Modifying Alimony to Obtain a Longer Payment Period

In Wiles v. Wiles (2017), a divorced couple faced a dispute over alimony modification. Initially granted alimony for a limited duration, the ex-wife sought to extend the payments indefinitely and increase the monthly amount. Despite the ex-husband's opposition, the trial court granted the modification based on the ex-wife's claim of a change in circumstances. On appeal, the appellate division upheld the decision, emphasizing the need for a "material" change in circumstances to justify altering the alimony award, which would otherwise result in a harsh or inequitable outcome.

March 22, 2024

Hernandez v. Matiendo (2017) & the Impact of Previous Litigation on Visitation Modification

In family law, while the concept of "double jeopardy" may not apply, courts generally avoid relitigating settled issues without a change in circumstances. This principle was highlighted in the case of Hernandez v. Matiendo (2017), where a mother sought to modify a visitation order established in a Puerto Rican court. Despite her claims of sexual abuse, the Maryland court upheld the original order, emphasizing that the issue had already been litigated in Puerto Rico.

March 25, 2024

Mullen v. Robbins (2017) & How Settlement Agreements Impact Alimony Modification

In the case of Mullen v. Robbins (2017), a high-earning physician learned the importance of careful contract language when dealing with private agreements during divorce. Despite reaching a private agreement on alimony, the ex-wife sought modification in court citing a change in circumstances due to health issues. The trial court ruled in her favor, emphasizing the need for a "material change in circumstances" to modify private agreements. The appellate division upheld the ruling, highlighting the importance of precise contract language in determining modifiability.