.webp)
.png)
So far on our blog, we have covered a great many topics within the general field of property division in Maryland and District of Columbia divorce matters. As we have seen, property division in Maryland can rapidly become quite complicated, as couples accumulate substantial assets, and there may be legitimate issues as to the classification of assets (as either separate or marital property). One property division issue which we have yet to mention is the issue of so-called “Crawford credits.” In the well-known Maryland Supreme Court case of Crawford v. Crawford (1982), one spouse paid the entirety of the expenses related to the couple’s marital home (i.e. property taxes, mortgage, etc.) while the couple was separated. Then, that spouse who paid the expenses wished to be compensated – or, more precisely, to have those expenses taken into account during property distribution – in the property division phase of the divorce.
The issue of Crawford credits came into play during the recent case of Mathew v. Mathew (2024). Let’s go over this case in detail so we can better understand this issue of Crawford credits in Maryland property division.
Facts of the Case
After the couple in this case separated, the husband was granted “exclusive” right to occupy the marital home. However, in addition, the court also stated that the husband was solely responsible for paying all expenses related to the home, including mortgage payments. When the couple’s divorce case was ready to divide up the marital property, the husband requested that he be given credit for the payments made on the marital home while he had exclusive possession. More precisely, he wanted these marital home related payments to be taken into account during the distribution of the marital property, so his contributions would be effectively balanced out in the overall division of the property.
The court rejected the husband’s request to be given “credit” for these marital home related payments. The husband then appealed this decision.
Outcome & Discussion
The husband lost on appeal. Although Maryland still recognizes the concept of “Crawford credits” in property division, there are four “exceptions” which may be cited to counteract these credits. In this case, the appellate division noted that one of these exceptions applied: in this situation, the husband was responsible for the payments, but he made the payments using marital funds. This means, in effect, that the wife was already sharing the burden of the marital home related expenses for the entire duration of the husband’s exclusive possession. Given that this was the case, the denial of the husband’s request for reimbursement based on the payments was upheld by the appellate division.
As mentioned, there are four total exceptions to the credit reimbursement principle established in the Crawford decision, and the three other exceptions can be noted here: (1) if one of the parties is “ousted,” or involuntarily ejected from the marital home, this might be grounds for an exception, (2) if there is a contractual agreement between the parties which clearly states that one party will shoulder the burden of expenses on the marital home and will not receive a reimbursable credit, and (3) if awarding a reimbursement credit for marital home related expenses would constitute an “inequitable result.”
Contact the Murphy Law Firm for Additional Information
If readers want additional information on mortgage credits in divorce litigation, the divorce process in general, reimbursements in divorce, or any other family law topic, contact one of the family law attorneys at the Murphy Law Firm today by calling 240-219-5243.
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
