Lasater v. Guttmann (2010): the Issue of Pending Lawsuits

Published on
November 3, 2023
Written by
Angel Murphy, Esq.
Category
Divorce

If you think of any legal hypothetical, no matter what type of scenario you conceive the answer to every question will always be the same: the outcome depends on all the relevant facts and circumstances. In order to “know” what will happen in a given situation, you need to have a clear understanding of everything which is factually relevant. If you don’t take proper account of everything, then you won’t be able to conduct a correct analysis and therefore won’t produce an answer. In law, even the slightest factual detail can transform an outcome entirely; the smallest factual discrepancy can bring a case from being a success to a failure, or a victory to a defeat. What happens when a spouse’s tortious conduct is handled in the context of a divorce? That was the issue in the case of Laster v. Guttmann (2010). Let’s examine this case in a bit of detail below.

Overview of the Case

The couple in this case were married for nearly 25 years before moving for a divorce. Both the husband and the wife were lawyers, but the wife became the primary caregiver to their children during the marriage. The husband assumed control of the couple’s finances, and eventually they ran into financial problems when the husband started overspending. The husband spent lavishly and had to obtain multiple lines of credit in order to support his habits. Ultimately, the couple racked up significant debt and had to refinance their house to balance their situation. The wife filed for divorce, and eventually the marriage was formally dissolved in 2007. The couple was able to reach an agreement successfully on all the critical aspects of the divorce, such as alimony and child support. The wife wanted to initiate separate lawsuits against the husband for his alleged tortious conduct during the marriage; specifically, the tortious conduct refers to the financial misbehavior of the husband. The court had to address the issue: can a spouse bring a suit against another spouse for tortious conduct while a divorce is pending?

Outcome & Discussion

Ultimately, the trial court determined that the court had the power to “stay” the lawsuits against the husband while the divorce was still unresolved and pending. The appellate court reviewed the matter and upheld this decision, stating that the lower court indeed had the power to grant such a temporary stay to the lawsuits. Although the court acknowledged that this stay might have a negative impact on the plaintiff’s overall situation, granting such a stay is not outside the scope of the trial court’s authority. The wife argued that staying the lawsuits in this manner would allow future tortfeasors to walk away after committing certain forms of misbehavior, but the court rejected that argument. This shows, among other things, that the court has broad discretion when it comes to addressing potential litigation in the context of divorce; when divorces involve conduct which may be considered “tortious,” parties need to be aware that the court can stay a lawsuit even when doing so may affect the party attempting to bring a suit.

Reach Out to the Murphy Law Firm for More Information Today

If you want to know more, contact one of the leading family law attorneys at the Murphy Law Firm today by calling 240-219-9311.

‍

Angel Murphy

Personable. Passionate. Persistent.

Legal Analysis | Divorce Proceedings | Tortious Conduct | Case Study | Laster v. Guttmann (2010) | Factual Relevance | Divorce Litigation | Financial Misbehavior | Court Authority| Alimony and Child Support | Spousal Lawsuits | Appellate Court Decision | Temporary Stay | Legal Discretion | Divorce Impact on Lawsuits | Legal Outcome | Divorce and Tortious Conduct | Marital Misbehavior | Financial Responsibilities in Marriage | Legal Precedent | Divorce Agreement | Court's Broad Authority | Impact of Divorce on Financial Misconduct Cases

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.