Divorce proceedings are among the more thorny types of cases with which courts must wrestle. In addition to issues such as child custody, if the parties cannot agree the trial court may have to resolve monetary disputes, such as alimony or child support. The court may also need to address a monetary award to balance out the financial position of the former spouses. How this works is illustrated by the case of Gordon v. Gordon decided last week by Maryland’s intermediate appellate court.
Maryland’s Family Law Article codifies detailed laws established by the legislature that govern family law or divorce proceedings. Among those provisions are those empowering a trial judge to make a marital property award, usually monetary in nature, from one spouse to another. The purpose of such an award has been described by the courts as a way to counterbalance any unfairness that may result from actual distribution of property acquired during the marriage.
In making such an award, the court must consider a number of factors spelled out in the law, in addition to whether alimony should be awarded, to balance out inequities of income between spouses. In determining such an award, the court is required to determine what is martial property acquired jointly during the marriage, what is the value of that property, and if it determines that a monetary award is proper to balance the equities rights of the parties what the proper amount should be.
The Court is also now allowed by statute to actually order transfer of title to specific property, such as a house, in resolving the financial disputes of divorcing spouses. It was this provision that caused the trouble in resolving the financial issues in Gordon v. Gordon. According to the appellate court’s opinion, the parties were willing to divide up their marital property by transfer of title to specific property. However, the wife claimed that she had put $30,000 of money she brought into the marriage into purchase of the family home, and wanted her money back. The husband claimed she had made a gift to him of this contribution, which the trial judge rejected.
The parties had titled the house jointly as husband and wife, known as tenants by the entireties. The trial judge therefore rightly concluded that this was marital property. The law does allow the court to consider a party’s contribution of non-marital assets as a factor in making a marital award. The judge ordered, as part of his resolution of the various financial disputes between the parties, that $30,000 “off the top” be paid to the wife to compensate her for this contribution of money acquired before the marriage to the purchase of the house.
The appellate court reversed the trial judge’s decision, and sent the case back to the trial judge to revisit the award or at least explain a basis for the award consistent with the statute. While the trial judge had commented on other factors besides the cash contribution in making the award, such as length of the marriage, fault for the breakup, and relative financial contributions, it was the reference to reimbursing the wife for this cash contribution that gave the appellate court pause. An adjustment for such a contribution, the Court said, can only be made after consideration and weighing of all the factors for a monetary award set forth in the law.
This illustrates the difficulties a trial judge goes through when divorcing spouses cannot resolve their differences themselves.