Huntley v. Huntley (2016) & Procedural Correctness in Property Division

Multiple times on our blog we have attempted to stress vigorously the importance of observing all procedural rules in the divorce process. The reason we have tried to stress this point is because failing to observe procedural rules can quite literally alter the whole outcome of a case. In other words, failing to follow proper procedure can transform an entire case: in some instances, a litigant could have achieved a completely dissimilar outcome if he or she had simply followed rather than ignored proper procedure. Procedural rules in the area of property division have particularly high importance given the fact that money is at stake. In the case of Huntley v. Huntley (2016), failing to properly identify a particular marital asset ultimately meant that an ex-husband was unable to receive a 50% share. Let’s look at the details of this case more closely.

Overview of the Case

The couple in this case were married for nearly 28 years. The wife filed for divorce, and in her divorce petition she identified specific marital assets to which she desired to claim her marital portion. She requested alimony, and also 50% of the husband’s retirement benefits. In his response to the wife’s petition, the husband stated that the wife shouldn’t be entitled to alimony, but didn’t reply directly to the wife’s claim to the marital portion of his retirement benefits. Significantly, the husband didn’t fail to observe any other procedural rule throughout the remainder of the divorce process; he responded to things in a timely fashion, submitted a Rule 9-207 form, and fulfilled all other procedural requirements. However, when the wife directly referenced the husband’s retirement benefits in her petition, this placed an additional requirement on the husband to combat this request in his response. Half of the husband’s retirement benefits were awarded to the wife at the trial court, along with attorney’s fees. The wife didn’t receive alimony, and the husband received nothing from the wife’s retirement benefits. The husband appealed this ruling.

Outcome & Discussion

The Rule 9-207 form is a formal requirement in the property division process in Maryland. This form is submitted by both parties, and essentially lists all the assets which will be given consideration in the divorce. The parties list the assets which they will contest, and those which they will not contest, as “marital assets” subject to division via equitable distribution. In this situation, both the husband’s retirement benefits and the wife’s retirement benefits were specifically listed as marital assets in the Rule 9-207 forms. In other words, there was no question that these were both marital assets. However, when the wife identified retirement benefits specifically in her petition, this put the retirement “in question,” so to speak, at least insofar as they were eligible for division. When the husband failed to combat the wife’s request in his formal response to the petition, he essentially gave up half of his retirement benefits, and also lost his ability to claim half of the wife’s benefits. Because he did specifically combat the alimony request, he was able to defeat that request; but, in order to succeed with respect to the retirement benefits, he would have needed to address both his and his wife’s benefits specifically in his formal response.

Contact the Murphy Law Firm for More Information

If you want additional information on property division in Maryland, or more information on another related matter, contact one of the top attorneys at the Murphy Law Firm today by calling 240-219-8943.