.webp)
One of the primary goals of our blog is to educate readers on important legal issues. One way to do this is by examining current cases in the area of Maryland family law which is one of our primary jurisdictions. In our common law system, every new case has the potential to add a layer to our understanding of the law. So it’s important that we keep up to date with new cases. In this post, we’re going to give brief summaries of two recent cases in Maryland family law – Malech v. Malech (2022) and Norris v. Norris (2022).
Case #1: – Solid Legal Math in Maryland Family Law
For many people, including many lawyers, the phrase “legal math” is a bit of an oxymoron, but one recent case demonstrates the importance of having solid legal math. The case of Malech v. Malech featured a marital dissolution in which the wife was initially ordered to transfer a large portion of her retirement assets to her former husband. The purpose of this transfer was to comply with an order from the court which stated that the “… [p]arties shall equalize their retirement assets.” The original transfer amount was $303,388. Upon closer scrutiny, however, one of the wife’s lawyers noted that the mathematics of the transfer appeared to be incorrect. Following additional computation, the lawyer determined that the correct transfer amount was actually $40,000 lower than the original amount!The court subsequently reviewed the new calculation by the wife’s legal team and concluded that this calculation was correct. The husband then tried to appeal the court ruling. But this appeal was defeated. The reviewing court determined that, since the original purpose was to effectuate the intent of the parties, this was best done by using accurate numbers which balanced the assets. If the wife’s legal team hadn’t spotted the mathematical error, there is an excellent chance that this would’ve slipped past the radar, and the husband may have ended up with a $40,000 windfall.
Case #2: Norris v. Norris Maryland Family Law Case
The case of Norris v. Norris (2022) clearly illustrates the need for qualified counsel during the divorce process. In this case, a husband and wife participated in mediation for their dissolution. The husband initially believed that the court ordered the mediation. It was not.During the mediation, the husband agreed to a lump sum alimony of $290,000. Given their financial circumstances – the husband made roughly $27,000 a month while the wife made $7,000. This was a fair outcome. The husband signed the final settlement agreement. The court then approved it. He had ample time to obtain counsel but refused to obtain one at any point. The husband also made repeated statements about how his acceptance of the settlement terms was completely free and voluntary.After learning that the court did not order the mediation, the husband attempted to challenge the final agreement on the basis of his lack of representation. However, the court ultimately rejected this argument, given that he had the opportunity to obtain counsel. Plus, technically, lack of counsel wouldn’t have been able to hold up as an argument against the settlement. The only valid argument would’ve been a lack of consent. It was clear that Mr. Norris fully consented at every step.Again, both cases, highlight the importance of having qualified representation. If Mr. Norris had obtained a qualified attorney, the outcome may very well have been different.
Contact The Murphy Law Firm for More Information
If you’d like to learn more, reach out to The Murphy Law Firm today by calling 240-493-9116.
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
