Salkini v. Salkini (2016): Handling Discovery Violations

Published on
December 1, 2023
Written by
Angel Murphy
Category
Divorce

Many people think that winning a divorce case depends only on the "facts" of the case. In other words, as long as the hard evidence remains on his or her side, most individuals assume that an optimal outcome will always be within their grasp. The truth, however, is a bit more subtle, because divorce litigation hinges on a great many variables. Of course, the plain facts of a case are of immense importance, but procedural matters also carry great weight. This is because missing a particular procedural step can completely change the outcome of a case. The weight of procedural missteps was highlighted in the well-known case of Salkini v. Salkini (2016). Let’s take a closer look at this important case.

 

Overview of Salkini v. Salkini (2016)

The couple in this case were married for over two decades. Three years prior to the marriage, the husband founded a technology company which ultimately became financially profitable. When the couple divorced, the technology company was by far the most valuable asset in the couple’s portfolio. In addition to the company, the couple also had real estate which was worth approximately $2.8 million. The precise worth of the husband's business emerged as a significant concern during the property division process following their divorce. During the trial, the husband had strategically arranged for his own expert witnesses to testify regarding the value of the company, while the wife had meticulously planned to present her own expert testimonies in her defense.

Parties must provide adequate notice of the expected testimony of expert witnesses as part of the discovery process. This gives the parties enough time to prepare their testimonies and their responses to the other party's testimonies.The wife's expert witness informed about his testimony, but only did so the day before the trial.This was well after the deadline. Despite disallowing the wife's expert witness to present independent testimony, the trial judge permitted the witness to provide rebuttals to the husband's expert witness testimony. The wife appealed this trial court determination.

‍

Outcome & Discussion

The wife was unsuccessful on appeal. According to the appellate court, trial court judges have significant flexibility in enforcing discovery deadlines. Without the authority possessed by trial judges, there would be a greater likelihood of frequent abuse of discovery deadlines, which are an integral part of the legal process. The judge was right to penalize the wife for not giving proper notice about her expert witness's testimony. The wife’s expert witness was only allowed to give rebuttal testimony, and her end result suffered as a consequence.

‍

Contact the Murphy Law Firm for More Information

If you would like additional information on discovery violations, or another matter, reach out to one of the lattorneys at the MurphyLaw Firm today by calling 240-219-8963.

‍

Image credit to Brian Turner

Angel Murphy

Personable. Passionate. Persistent.

Discovery, Custody, Discretion

Subscribe to our newsletter

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

Articles & Resources

March 4, 2024

Rudnick v. Rudnick (2023) & Unconscionability in Maryland Prenuptial Agreements

In Rudnick v. Rudnick (2023), a prenuptial agreement signed in 1992 became the subject of dispute during the couple's divorce in 2019. The agreement, which prohibited the division of assets or alimony, was initially considered fair but was deemed unconscionable at the time of enforcement. Massachusetts law, where the case arose, applied an unconscionability analysis at the time of enforcement. The courts ruled in favor of the wife, highlighting the importance of skilled legal representation well-versed in relevant state laws.

April 1, 2024

Carrington v. Richards (2017) & the Role of Participation in Custody Modification

In Carrington v. Richards (2017), a custody battle turned tragic due to the mother's failure to participate in court proceedings. Initially seeking full custody of their son, the father was awarded sole custody when the mother failed to appear at the final hearing. Despite subsequent attempts to overturn the decision, the mother's non-compliance with court orders and absence from proceedings hindered her case. Ultimately, the father's custody was affirmed, but the case took a devastating turn when the mother shot and wounded the father. This case underscores the importance of active participation in custody proceedings and the serious consequences of non-compliance.

March 29, 2024

Wiles v. Wiles (2017) & Modifying Alimony to Obtain a Longer Payment Period

In Wiles v. Wiles (2017), a divorced couple faced a dispute over alimony modification. Initially granted alimony for a limited duration, the ex-wife sought to extend the payments indefinitely and increase the monthly amount. Despite the ex-husband's opposition, the trial court granted the modification based on the ex-wife's claim of a change in circumstances. On appeal, the appellate division upheld the decision, emphasizing the need for a "material" change in circumstances to justify altering the alimony award, which would otherwise result in a harsh or inequitable outcome.

March 22, 2024

Hernandez v. Matiendo (2017) & the Impact of Previous Litigation on Visitation Modification

In family law, while the concept of "double jeopardy" may not apply, courts generally avoid relitigating settled issues without a change in circumstances. This principle was highlighted in the case of Hernandez v. Matiendo (2017), where a mother sought to modify a visitation order established in a Puerto Rican court. Despite her claims of sexual abuse, the Maryland court upheld the original order, emphasizing that the issue had already been litigated in Puerto Rico.

March 25, 2024

Mullen v. Robbins (2017) & How Settlement Agreements Impact Alimony Modification

In the case of Mullen v. Robbins (2017), a high-earning physician learned the importance of careful contract language when dealing with private agreements during divorce. Despite reaching a private agreement on alimony, the ex-wife sought modification in court citing a change in circumstances due to health issues. The trial court ruled in her favor, emphasizing the need for a "material change in circumstances" to modify private agreements. The appellate division upheld the ruling, highlighting the importance of precise contract language in determining modifiability.