by Cynthia M. Lifson | Jun 25, 2015 | Notes from Annapolis
In 2015, the Maryland General Assembly modified one of the basic elements of proof necessary to obtain an absolute (or final) divorce in Maryland. The amount of time one of the parties must reside in Maryland before being eligible to petition a Maryland court for an absolute divorce has been reduced from one year to six months. This new residency requirement becomes effective on October 1st. This legislative change was brought to the attention of the General Assembly by military attorneys who work primarily at Ft. Meade and is intended to assist service members. People in the military are often transferred during the course of their duty and have difficulty meeting the one year standard. This change in the Code to require only a six month residency may accelerate the divorce process for newcomers to Maryland. Of course, this change is available to all persons who file for divorce in...
by Cynthia M. Lifson | May 26, 2015 | Notes from the Courts
Marital Share of Spouse’s Pension Includes All Elements of the Pension Benefit In a new application of an old theme, the Maryland Court of Special Appeals reiterated the basic concept of interpreting an agreement of the parties with regard to a spouse’s pension benefit. In Pulliam v. Pulliam, filed on April 29, 2015, the Court held that a consent judgment was unambiguous and that all elements of the Husband’s pension benefit are to be included in the transfer to Wife of her marital share of Husband’s pension. The facts of this case are straightforward. At the time of the entry of a judgment of absolute divorce, the parties reached a settlement of their differences and subsequently created a consent order for review and signature by the judge. The consent order contained all of the elements in the agreement of the parties. The term of the consent order that the court was interpreting was written as follows: “ORDERED, that the Defendant shall assign to the Plaintiff an interest in the Pension System for Law Enforcement officers of the State of Maryland as follows: One half of the Marital Share of his entire pension benefit.” When the time came for Husband to sign the particular order needed to transfer Wife’s marital share to her, he refused to do so. He asserted that one particular piece of the Husband’s benefit (referred to as the Deferred Retirement Option Program or “DROP”) should not be included in the calculation of the transfer to Wife. Husband argued that at the time of the divorce, Husband was not eligible to receive DROP as a part of...
by Cynthia M. Lifson | May 26, 2015 | Notes from Annapolis
In the aftermath of the 2015 session of the Maryland General Assembly, we naturally focus our attention on bills passed by the Assembly and signed by the Governor. But as we sift through the accomplishments of our elected officials, it is always important to consider the bills that did not pass and the problems that may ensue without adjustment to our Code. One such bill that did not receive a favorable review this year is the Maryland Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (SB 429/HB 531). If enacted, this bill would vest fiduciaries with the authority to access, control, or copy digital assets and accounts. Typically such accounts – Facebook, e-mails, tweets and other on-line accounts – are governed by the contract created by the user of the account and the provider of the service without any reference to fiduciaries. Under the bill, fiduciary means a personal representative, guardian, agent acting pursuant to a power of attorney, trustee or advisor. In essence, the bill would enable a fiduciary to “step into the shoes” of the account holder. The fiduciary could take action that the account holder can take and would be bound by the same limitations of the account holder. While opponents of this bill cited concerns about the privacy of the account holder, as we collectively become more and more engaged in electronic communications and transactions, it is becoming increasingly apparent that those who are entrusted with managing our affairs – the fiduciaries we count on to perform tasks on our behalf – can encounter significant obstacles in dealing with on line transactions. For example, in estate administration,...
by Cynthia M. Lifson | Apr 24, 2015 | Notes from Annapolis
When parents of minor children live in separate households, providing for children’s financial needs can become especially challenging. Occasionally, the press reports on studies that calculate the financial cost of raising a child until legal adulthood, and to most of us, the number of dollars is enormous. Still, children need to be fed, clothed, sheltered, and cared for when parents are at work. The basic health insurance needs of children must also be addressed. When evaluating the affordability of child support, it helps to understand the difference between what we want and what we need. For legal purposes, child support is designed to cover the basic needs of children and, as a general rule, the law holds both mothers and fathers legally accountable for the financial support of their children. For most people, the amount of child support will be calculated according to a formula established in the law. This formula divides the obligation of child support in proportion to each parent’s income, allowing for variations that depend on the circumstances of the particular family. For example, as one would intuit, the amount of child support that is appropriate for two children will differ from the amount for six children. Similarly, the appropriate amount of child support will differ according to the actual residential time spent by the child in each parent’s home as well as the total amount of income generated by the family. Child support is not generally intended to cover expenses for extracurricular activities such as sports teams or dance lessons (nor will child support be ordered by a Maryland court to cover college tuition or...
by Cynthia M. Lifson | Apr 24, 2015 | Notes from Annapolis
The 2015 session of the Maryland General Assembly ended with the enrollment of a bill that will soon generate a quiet revolution in the practice of family law. Governor Hogan has not officially signed it, but HB 472 (Family Law-Grounds for Divorce-Mutual Consent) is likely to be approved and go into effect on October 1, 2015. HB 472 authorizes a court to decree an absolute (i.e. final) divorce on the ground of mutual consent. In order to use the ground of mutual consent, spouses cannot have any minor child in common and must execute and submit to the court a written settlement agreement that is signed by both parties. This agreement must resolve all issues related to alimony and the distribution of property, and neither party may file a pleading to set aside the agreement. Additionally, both parties are also required to appear before the court at the absolute divorce hearing. HB 472 significantly eases the requirements for a no-fault divorce in Maryland. Under our current law, spouses are required to live in two different homes and refrain from any sexual relationship for a minimum of one year before they are entitled to file for an absolute divorce. HB 472 eliminates these requirement for couples without minor children in common. However, it does require these couples to sign a written settlement agreement that addresses money issues that relate to marriage, such as alimony and property. If divorcing couples can accomplish this task, then they can promptly move forward and resume their status as single individuals without the expense of moving to a new home or dealing with the intrusive...
