.webp)
.png)
In the past, we’ve stressed the importance of following all procedural rules which apply in a given case. In family law, just as in other areas of law, procedural rules carry very substantial weight, which means that even a single procedural or technical flaw can lead to a total collapse. In a way, the importance of procedure is among the most critical reasons as to why hiring a skilled family law attorney can be so beneficial: attorneys, being well versed in the technical aspects of their chosen specialization, can assist clients in navigating these rules and avoiding potholes. Understandably, many laypeople are a bit unhappy with this state of affairs, given that these seemingly arbitrary rules require so much attention and resources to follow. But, in the end, these rules are simply a necessity as the legal system needs these rules to function properly.
We discussed the case of Adelakun v. Adelakun (2025) in the past when it was at the appellate stage. The Supreme Court of Maryland recently heard this case, and so today we will revisit this case and relay the court’s determinations.
Factual Posture of the Case
The parties in this case shared three children, and custody, child support and alimony were the issues which arose following the divorce petition. The mother requested primary physical custody, pendente lite child support, and alimony, while the father requested primary physical custody for himself as well as child support. At the trial court level, the mother was unsuccessful, as the court denied her pendente lite child support and alimony requests, and awarded shared custody and shared payment of certain expenses. These recommendations were part of an interlocutory order, which the trial court accepted and incorporated into its ruling.
The mother appealed this ruling, arguing that such an appeal was permissible under current law. However, the appellate division ruled that the appeal was improper, holding that interlocutory orders denying the payment of money were not appealable. The mother then petitioned for review by the Supreme Court and this was granted.
Ruling & Post-Ruling Discussion
The Supreme Court of Maryland upheld the appellate division’s ruling, affirming that such orders were not appealable. Interestingly, if the interlocutory order had been one which directed the payment of money, as opposed to denying the payment of money, the order would have been appealable. The statutory authority referenced was CJ Section 12-303(3)(v): the Supreme Court that this statute only allowed appeals from orders which directed payment, not those which denied payment. The court cited various pieces of authority, including case law and legislative history (which showed intent), in support of this conclusion.
Again, this case clearly demonstrates the importance of following all procedural rules, as the mother in this case essentially lost her appeal simply because of a technicality. In the end, she ended up using valuable resources pursuing a “dead end” argument, as the technical rules were not negotiable. This is an excellent example of how an attorney had the potential to confer substantial value: a skilled attorney should’ve been able to identify the rigid nature of these technicalities, and counsel the mother accordingly.
Contact the Murphy Law Firm for More Information
Readers who want to learn more about child support guidelines, pendente lite child support requests, alimony requests, appealing interlocutory orders, or any other relevant family law matter, contact one of the leading family law attorneys at the Murphy Law Firm today by calling 240-219-1187.
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
