Stoltz v. Clarke (2017) & the Importance of the Rules of Trial Procedure

In many ways, trial procedure in family law isn’t about being logical, or reasonable, it’s about providing a consistent framework for the efficient resolution of cases. When courts provide rules for how things need to proceed, this is done as a matter of expediency, and nothing else. This is something which often frustrates and confounds non-lawyers, because they often try to approach cases in ways which might be reasonable but which simply don’t follow the preestablished procedure. In the case of Stoltz v. Clarke (2017), for instance, a mother tried to include certain text message communications as evidence in her custody case, but was ultimately struck down because of a procedural failure. Let’s examine this case in a bit more detail to better understand the nuances of trial procedure in Maryland family law.

Fact Pattern of the Case

The mother and father in this case became involved in a bitter custody battle over their two daughters. The mother installed an app on one of her daughter’s phones in order to monitor her text message communications and social media activity. Eventually, when the custody issue went to trial, the mother tried to submit some of the text message content from her daughter as evidence; she believed that the content of the text message communications would further her case to obtain primary custody. The father argued that the mother had violated the Wiretap and Electronic Surveillance Act (of Maryland) when she tried to submit the messages as evidence, and that the messages should be excluded from evidence on that basis. The trial court agreed, and excluded the test message communications from being used in the custody litigation. The mother then appealed this trial court ruling (to exclude the evidence).

Ruling & Discussion

The appellate division reviewed the matter and determined that the trial court ruling had to stand. Interestingly, the mother’s problem was not so much the content of the messages, but instead her failure to follow all the rules of trial procedure. When the husband moved to exclude the text message evidence, he submitted something referred to as a “motion in limine.” When someone submits this type of motion to exclude evidence, the other party must file a particular kind of motion in response to combat it. Technically, the mother needed to make a “proffer of evidence,” which means that she needed to submit the content of the messages to the judge directly. Since the mother failed to do this, but instead had simply challenged the result of the father’s motion, the appellate division essentially had no choice but to uphold the trial court ruling. The appellate judge noted that, had the mother correctly made a proffer of evidence, she likely would’ve succeeded in overturning the trial court decision, but proper procedure compelled the appellate judge to uphold the ruling.

Ultimately, the result was that the court awarded each parent sole legal custody of one child. The mother was apparently quite dissatisfied with this outcome. This is a classic example of a case being greatly impacted by procedural rules – or, more precisely, the failure to follow procedural rules – as opposed to substantive facts. If the mother had been able to submit the messages, she may have succeeded in obtaining primary custody (of both children), but the failure to follow proper procedure was decisive. To get the result she desired, she needed to invest in better counsel, as a better counselor would’ve been able to respond correctly to the motion in limine.

Contact the Murphy Law Firm for More Information

If you want to learn more about trial procedure, or another related family law topic, contact one of the family law attorneys at the Murphy Law Firm today by calling 240-219-8825.