.webp)
.png)
As we have stressed time and time again, technicalities are typically very important in the legal world. Often, entire cases hinge on a single technical requirement, and so parties always need to be sure that they have satisfied every technical requirement which applies to their case. But, in addition to checking off all requirements, parties also need to fully understand all the contours of the requirements which they must fulfill. In certain instances, technical requirements may be more expansive than parties might anticipate, and this relative lack of understanding can come back to haunt the parties. In other words, parties cannot simply fulfill their requirements in a “passive” way, they need to actively understand what their case requirements involve, otherwise they might face rude surprises.
In the case of Lasko v. Lasko (2020), for instance, a husband believed he had a solid argument against the pleadings used by his wife, but he ultimately lost because he failed to truly understand the full effect of the pleadings in question. Let’s examine this case in more detail.
Case Facts
The parties in this case were married in 2004. They had three children together, all of whom were minors at the time the divorce petition was filed. The parties separated in February of 2015, and then in May of 2015 the husband filed a petition for divorce. The husband filed the initial complaint, and then the wife filed an answer. In her answer, the wife requested that the court make a reasonable valuation of all marital property, and also grant her all the relief to which she may be entitled via the divorce process. The husband also filed an amended complaint, but the wife did not file an amended answer or secondary answer at all.
At the trial court, the court reviewed the totality of the marital property owned by the parties at the time of the divorce. The parties had acquired significant property during the marriage in the form of both tangible and intangible property (i.e. automobiles, bank accounts, retirement accounts, etc.). After conducting its valuation, and taking all relevant facts into consideration, the trial court divided the assets and granted the wife a monetary award of $35,000. The husband appealed, arguing that the court erred by granting the relief because the wife did not expressly or otherwise adequately request such relief.
Ruling & Outcome
The appellate division affirmed the trial court’s determination which granted the wife a sizable monetary award. While the appellate division noted that the wife did not specifically request a monetary award, her answer did make a request for all the possible relief which might be due to her during the divorce process. Although perhaps not as specific as the husband might have been preferred, the appellate court determined that this broad request was sufficient to grant the award.
Furthermore, the husband attempted to cite several technical deficiencies with the wife’s pleadings aside from this lack of specificity; he argued, for instance, that the wife’s answer only referenced the husband’s initial complaint for a “limited divorce,” but not absolute divorce, and that therefore her monetary award should not have been granted. In the husband’s argument, the wife needed to make a specific monetary request in an answer specifically addressing absolute divorce to have the relief granted. Again, the appellate division was not persuaded by the husband’s contentions.
Contact the Murphy Law Firm for Additional Information
Readers who want to know more about monetary awards in divorce cases, procedural issues in the divorce process, property division, or any other aspect of the divorce process in Maryland, contact one of the family law attorneys at the Murphy Law Firm today by calling 240-219-5243.
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
