.webp)
As we have pointed out plenty of times before, divorce cases are nearly always stressful. Going through a divorce can be among the most stressful experiences a person can endure. One of the most stressful aspects of a divorce is the waiting period in between the trial and the final divorce proclamation. Currently, the State of Maryland doesn’t have a bright line rule, or deadline, regarding the issuance or distribution of divorce judgments; in other words, in theory, a trial judge has an “unlimited” amount of time, although judgments typically arrive shortly after the close of trial. We can see, with not too much effort, how an excessive delay in the distribution of divorce judgments could cause a given person a level of harm.
What happens when a litigant argues that a given delay was unreasonable, and the proximate cause for a substantial level of harm? How will a Maryland reviewing court approach this type of situation? These issues turned up in the recent case of Vu v. Dinh (2025).
Let’s examine this case in more detail.
Facts of the Case
The couple in this case was married in 1999. The wife filed for divorce in 2020, out of Montgomery County. After a trial, a judge eventually entered a final divorce judgment to end the case; the final judgment resolved multiple divorce issues, including property division, and wasn’t formally entered until nearly 11 months after the close of trial. This divorce judgment was in many ways favorable to the wife, as she received a disproportionate share of the marital estate. Consequently, the husband appealed.
Ruling & Discussion
The husband’s primary argument on appeal was that the lateness of the divorce judgment rendered its terms unreasonable, or otherwise rendered the judgment invalid altogether. This was the core of the husband’s argument: the judgment was unreasonable because of how long the judges needed to produce it ( -- nearly 11 months). On review, the appellate court rejected this argument, as Maryland doesn’t presently adhere to any such bright line rule governing the timing of divorce judgments. At this time, lateness can be a factor used to supplement another argument, but it cannot be used as an argument by itself. The husband wanted the court to reconstruct the concept of “unreasonableness” -- which would be needed to overturn the issue on appeal – along a strict temporal standard, but the appellate division refused to do that in this situation.
Historically, successful arguments must show that the offensive conduct (i.e. the delay) caused actual harm, and that this causation is unreasonable. Merely showing a delay of a certain magnitude has never been the established standard for demonstrating unreasonableness. And, because the husband also failed to provide any other evidence which might prove his claim of unreasonableness, his appeal was defeated on that basis.
Put simply, the court refused to adopt a rigid standard for how quickly divorce judgments need to be created before an offense is “presumed” specifically because of a supposed delay. This gives important clarification to this subarea of the law in Maryland.
If readers do come across delays which seem offensively long, this is precisely one of the reasons why obtaining qualified family law counsel is so valuable. If a delay is too long – for instance, quite a bit longer than the one seen here in this case – then this excessive delay might be grounds for overturning a judgment, but everything depends on the extent of the delay.
Contact the Murphy Law Firm for More Resources
To learn more about delays in the delivery of divorce judgments, the potential impact of a delayed ruling, prejudice and harm in judicial rulings, unreasonable judicial behavior, or any other related matter, contact one of the family law attorneys at the Murphy Law Firm today by calling 240-219-1187.
