.webp)
.png)
As we have discussed previously on our blog, family law litigation can often bring out some of the worst instincts in people. And, along the same lines, family law litigation can often prompt people to make absurd maneuvers in an effort to strengthen their case. This may be a foible of human nature, but it is simply an unavoidable reality. In the past, we’ve covered cases in which litigants committed all sorts of gross mistakes and errors during a divorce. What we haven’t discussed as much is the phenomenon of litigants making absurd arguments which any reasonable, impartial observer would know has little chance of success. This is what occurred in the very recent case of Murray v. Murray, Jr. (2024).
In this case, the wife made an argument which derived from the so-called “sovereign citizen” movement. Let’s examine this case so we can take a lesson in “litigation tactics” in Maryland.
Facts of the Case
In 2022, the parties in this case reached a marital settlement agreement which included a provision related to the sale of their home. The provision stated that, once the couple’s child graduated from secondary school, the marital home would be sold and any profits from the sale would be divided equally between the parties.
In 2023, the parties’ child graduated, and then subsequently the wife refused to cooperate in selling the home. The husband then went back to court and tried to compel the wife to cooperate in selling the home; more specifically, he requested that a separate trustee be appointed to oversee the sale of the home and the disbursement of the profits. The wife tried to block this attempt by the husband, and she based her argument on principles deriving from the “sovereign citizen” movement. Essentially, the sovereign citizen movement in the U.S. holds that each citizen is his or her own sovereign entity and, therefore, any authority claimed by federal or state governments is baseless and void.
Ruling & Discussion
The court rejected the wife’s argument and ordered the sale of the marital home to move forward, as the settlement agreement originally stipulated. This is a classic instance of someone “grasping at straws” and making wild arguments to try to prevent an inevitability. The wife obviously changed her mind and wished to back out of the agreement which she voluntarily signed at the beginning of the divorce. But, because she lacked a legitimate peg on which to base her desire, she ultimately resorted to making an absurd argument based on nonsensical ideas.
Readers need to be aware that Maryland courts, just like other courts throughout this country, will simply not even entertain or debate silly ideas such as those springing from the sovereign citizen movement. While movements such as this one might present interesting ideas, and seem appealing for one reason or another, people need to understand that these ideas don’t carry weight in a court of law in Maryland or elsewhere.
We can extrapolate the outcome in this case to other scenarios in which other “nonsensical” ideas might appear. If, for instance, someone refuses to pay income taxes based on the idea that the 16th amendment to the U.S. Constitution wasn’t properly ratified, that person needs to understand that he or she won’t be taken seriously. And, in cases like that, the ramifications for making such arguments can be quite unpleasant, including heavy involvement from the IRS.
Contact the Murphy Law Firm for More Information
If readers want to know more about “dead end” arguments in family law contexts, property division, court ordered home sales, or any other related topic, contact one of the family law attorneys at the Murphy Law Firm today by calling 240-219-5243.
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
