Preview:

REPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 2205 September Term, 1999

JOSEPH GEORGE HEINLEIN

v.

ROBIN STEFAN

Moylan, Hollander, Bishop, John J. (Ret., Specially Assigned), JJ.

OPINION BY MOYLAN, J.

Filed: September 29, 2000

When granting a divorce, a judge may unilaterally retain jurisdiction over yet unresolved marital property issues for an additional period of 90 days if in the divorce decree itself that reservation of jurisdiction is expressly made. For that

reservation of jurisdiction to extend beyond 90 days, however, it is required that both parties to the divorce consent to such a further extension. The precise issue before us, assuming

otherwise valid consent by the parties, is that of what, if any, time constraints there are on the act of giving formal consent. As an incident of resolving that question, we will revisit the never-ending riddle of what, if any, significance to give to words, phrases, or sentences that may appear in appellate

opinions. The immediate concern of this appeal is with the authority of the Circuit Court for Baltimore County to distribute marital property following the absolute divorce of the appellant, Joseph George Heinlein, and the appellee, Robin Stefan. is whether, after the lapse of 90 days, The sole issue the court lost

jurisdiction to engage in the distribution of marital property. The Formal Proceedings On July 11, 1995, the appellee filed a Complaint for a Limited Divorce, later amended to constitute a Complaint for an Absolute Divorce, in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County. The appellee sought custody of the parties' minor child, child

-2support, a monetary award, and the division of marital property. The appellant filed a Counter Complaint for Absolute Divorce on October 17, 1996. The trial on the merits took place on

September 23, 1998, before Judge Barbara Kerr Howe.

The issues The

of custody, visitation, and child support were resolved. marital property question remained unsettled. of the trial, Judge Howe reserved

At the conclusion and then

jurisdiction

cautiously advised: It is my understanding that the marital property issues which have arisen from the union of Miss Stefan and Mr. Heinlein are reserved for future determination by the Court. We would hope to have these matters scheduled within the next 90 days, but absent that, due to scheduling purposes, I have asked that counsel obtain the signatures of each party to this case so that we don't violate the Family Law Article and the rules which would require and demand of me that I determine those issues within 90 days indicating, again, we hope to get them in within 90 days and fully and finally litigated and resolved, and I now have that agreement to extend the time by consent beyond the 90 days from the date of divorce absolute and for reservation of my authority to make such a determination. (Emphasis supplied). Pursuant to the advice and request of Judge Howe, on

September 23, 1998, the following "Consent to Reservation of Jurisdiction for Purpose of Determining Marital Property"

("Consent Agreement") was signed by both parties:

-3The parties hereto... pursuant to Family Law Article,

Download Heinlein v. Stefan.pdf

Maryland Law