Ridgeway v. Ridgeway (2006) & Attorney Fee Awards

Published on
March 2, 2026
Written by
Angel Murphy, Esq
Category
Divorce

In family law, people argue about many things: child custody, alimony (or “spousal support”), dividing property, and more. One of the things which tends to be fought over quite fiercely is attorney’s fees, and the reason for this is quite simple: these fees, particularly in the context of appeals, can add up quickly. Of course, fees will vary depending on the complexity of the case, the attorney’s experience level, and other variables, but parties usually try to shift these fees in their favor when they have the opportunity. In other words, when parties believe they can shift this financial burden to the other party, the tendency is that such requests will be made to the court. Family courts in Maryland have the power to award attorney’s fees to the other party, depending on the case, and this is something which all current and prospective family law litigants in Maryland need to be aware of.

What happens when a party tries to have attorney’s fees awarded in advance of an upcoming appeal? More exactly, what happens when a party requests attorney’s fees in advance in order to defend himself or herself in that future appellate case? This issue came up in an older case called Ridgeway v. Ridgeway (2006).

Even though this case isn’t new, it conveys an important principle regarding attorney’s fee awards in this type of scenario. Let’s go over this case in detail.

‍

Facts of the Case

The parties in this case divorced in June of 2003. As part of the divorce judgment, the husband was required to pay the wife indefinite alimony. Not long after this judgment, the husband retired, and this retirement resulted in a decline of income. Consequently, the husband filed a petition to modify the alimony. The husband wanted to terminate the alimony award altogether, but the court held that a reduction, rather than outright termination, was the fairer resolution given that the husband still possessed a certain level of income. The husband indicated that he would seek appeal to revisit the issue of terminating alimony.

In response to the husband’s appeal, the wife sought advanced attorney’s fees in order to defend herself in that future appellate case. The trial court granted this request, awarding her $3,700 in advance to defend herself in the upcoming appellate suit. The husband then appealed this determination and the case went before the Maryland Special Appeals Court.

‍

Ruling & Analysis

The appellate division ruled in favor of the wife, upholding the advanced attorney’s fees award. In fact, there were three total issues raised on appeal, and all were ultimately upheld in the wife’s favor, but this issue of the fee award is centrally important here. The husband made several arguments against the advanced fee award, including an argument relating to the jurisdiction of the trial court to award such a fee. Upon review, the appellate court emphasized the fact that the trial court has broad discretion to award such fees, including an advanced award for an upcoming defense on appeal.

Again, although not new, this case is still quite relevant, and should be noted by parties as they proceed to trial in Maryland. Under certain circumstances, a prospective respondent (to an appeal) may be able to procure advanced attorney’s fees, provided that the respondent is able to demonstrate all the necessary elements of such an award (such as financial necessity, etc.).

‍

Contact the Murphy Law Firm for More Information

Readers who want to know more about advanced attorney’s fees for appellate cases, attorney’s fee awards in general, fee shifting provisions, alimony modification, alimony requests in general, or any other related matter, contact one of the family law attorneys at the Murphy Law Firm today by calling 240-219-1187.

‍

Angel Murphy

Personable. Passionate. Persistent.

Maryland Family Law | Attorney’s Fees | Advanced Fees | Appeals | Alimony | Spousal Maintenance | Divorce Litigation | Fee Shifting | Trial Court Discretion | Appellate Court | Maryland Special Appeals Court | Modification of Alimony | Legal Expenses | Appellate Defense | Court Awards | Divorce Appeals | Family Law Precedent | Financial Necessity | Maryland Divorce Law | Legal Strategy

Subscribe to our newsletter

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.

Articles & Resources

January 16, 2026

MD Supreme Court Addresses Complex Contract Issue in Pattison v. Pattison (2025)

Timing can be just as critical as substance in settlement agreements, particularly when offers include firm acceptance deadlines. Pattison v. Pattison (2025) reaffirmed that failing to accept a settlement offer by its stated deadline constitutes a rejection under basic contract law principles. The case highlights how family law courts apply contract doctrines strictly and underscores the importance of understanding offer-and-acceptance rules during divorce negotiations.

April 3, 2026

Brengle v. Tucker in Maryland Estate Law

n Brengle v. Tucker (1911), the Maryland court held that a will is invalid if it does not meet the strict requirement of two witness signatures, even if the testator’s intent is clear. The court refused to allow any exceptions to this rule, emphasizing that certain formalities in estate law are absolute. As a result, the decedent was treated as having died intestate, reinforcing the importance of strict compliance with will execution requirements.

March 30, 2026

Key Lessons from Gross v. Burneston for Will Drafting

In Gross v. Burneston (1900), the Maryland court clarified that a will’s attestation requirement can be satisfied without the testatrix giving direct verbal instruction to witnesses, as long as the witnesses understand the will’s purpose and sign voluntarily. The court emphasized that only legally relevant issues arising from the pleadings should be considered, rejecting attempts to introduce extraneous claims.

March 27, 2026

Wells v. Wells (2006) & More on Default Judgments

In Wells v. Wells (2006), the Maryland appellate court emphasized that default judgments should not prevent courts from pursuing fair and just outcomes, especially when a party presents a potentially valid defense. The court held that the trial court erred by failing to conduct a full evidentiary hearing before denying the motion to vacate the default judgment. This case highlights that while default judgments are disfavored, parties seeking to overturn them must present a credible justification and supporting arguments.

March 30, 2026

Sample Language of a Maryland Will Codicil

A codicil is a formal amendment to an existing, enforceable will and is typically used for minor changes, such as updating beneficiaries or assets. In Maryland, codicils must clearly identify the items being replaced and the new instructions to avoid ambiguity and potential legal challenges. Because drafting an enforceable codicil requires precision and knowledge of estate law, retaining a skilled estate planning attorney is highly recommended.