What’s an emergency in family law cases before the Court and what’s not?

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.

In Allred v. Allred (2019), the parties agreed to divide retirement benefits via a marital settlement agreement, including an “investment experience” clause. The appellate court reversed the trial court’s interpretation, finding that the investment experience ended on the date of the divorce judgment, as clearly stated in the agreement. This case highlights the importance of contract clarity and deference to plain language in divorce settlements.

Military divorces often involve the complex division of retirement benefits under the USFSPA and federal law. In Fulgium v. Fulgium (2019), the appellate court found that the trial court erred in calculating the wife's share of military retirement pay due to mathematical inaccuracies and a misapplication of the NDAA 2017. The case was remanded for recalculation in compliance with federal standards and limitations.

Transferring property in Maryland, whether by adding a co-owner or transferring full ownership, is a complex process requiring accurate preparation of a new deed. Key steps include preparing the deed, notarization, filing a lien certificate, and paying transfer and recording fees. Consulting an expert is highly recommended to avoid costly mistakes.

Indefinite alimony is awarded under a stricter standard than rehabilitative alimony and is reserved for cases of unconscionable disparity or other serious factors. In K.B. v. D.B. (2020), the appellate court overturned the trial court’s denial of indefinite alimony, emphasizing the massive income gap between the spouses. The ruling clarified that premarital earnings and marital duration must be weighed appropriately in alimony determinations.