Preview:

HEADNOTE Cadman Atta Mills v. Maimouna Mills, No. 2002, September Term, 2006 Power to Amend Order -- Revisory power, Amended Order, Qualified Domestic Relations Order, Pension benefits: Rohrbeck v. Rohrbeck, 318 Md. 28 (1989); circuit court did not err in entering Amended Order that added a provision entitling spouse to commutation pay in the same percentage that applied to other pension benefits under the parties' original agreement, as reflected in the Original Order, where the modification was necessary in order for the Original Order to be accepted by the pension plan administrator as a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. Amendment was proper where the court had reserved jurisdiction to modify any qualified pension order in the Judgment for Absolute Divorce and where the amendment did not deviate from the terms of the parties' settlement agreement and was invoked to effectuate intent of parties after pension amount was altered by commutation.

Nunc Pro Tunc, Failure to Disclose, Cure for Inadvertent Omissions: Eller v. Bolton, 168 Md. App. 96 (2006); Patton v. Denver Post Corp., 326 F.3d 1148 (10th Cir. 2003); circuit court did not err in ruling that nunc pro tunc is not appropriate cure for spouse's omission of the existence of a second retirement plan, not included in the parties' original agreement, where the failure to disclose was not inadvertent.

Motion to Vacate: The circuit court did not err in denying Motion to Vacate where the Amended Order did not deviate from terms of the parties' settlement agreement and was properly entered.

REPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 2002 September Term, 2006

CADMAN ATTA MILLS

v.

MAIMOUNA MILLS

Davis, Barbera, Alpert, Paul E. (retired, specially assigned), JJ.

Opinion by Davis, J.

Filed: March 5, 2008

Appellant, Cadman Mills, appeals from an Amended Order entered by the Circuit Court for Montgomery County (Scrivener, J.) on October 25, 2006 and the denial, on December 4, 2006, of appellant's Motion to Vacate. This appeal arises out of an Amended Order regarding appellant's retirement benefits with The World Bank. Appellant and appellee, Maimouna Mills, entered into a settlement agreement during their divorce proceeding on August 10, 2004 and placed the terms of their agreement on the record before the Circuit Court for Montgomery County (Ryan, J. presiding). The parties agreed, inter alia, to divide equally their "two retirement accounts." The parties further agreed that counsel would prepare appropriate Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (QDRO) to divide the accounts. On August 16, 2004, a written Judgment of Absolute Divorce was entered. The terms of the parties' settlement agreement were incorporated but not merged into the Judgment of Absolute Divorce. The judgment also reserved jurisdiction to modify any qualified pension order(s) necessary to carry out the terms of the parties* agreement. After appellant opposed appellee's Motion For Enforcement of Judgment of Absolute Divorce and For Appropriate Relief (First Motion) on the basis that appellee had failed to provide information regarding her retirement assets, the court entered an Order (Original Order) submitted by appellee. Appellant again opposed appellee's Second Motion for Enforcement of Judgment of Absolute Divorce and For Appropriate Relief (Second Motion), maintaining that the Plan Administrator from The World Bank notified her that the submitted Original Order needed to be amended in order to be accepted as a QDRO by The World Bank. After a hearing was

held, the Circuit Court for Montgomery County entered an Amended Order over appellant's objections. Appellant filed his Notice of Appeal from the Amended Order on October 25, 2006. Contemporaneously on that day, appellee received documentation that The World Bank was prepared to honor the Original Order. Subsequently, appellant filed a Motion to Vacate the Amended Order, which was later denied on December 4, 2006. On December 13, 2006, appellant filed his Notice of Appeal from the denial of the Motion to Vacate. We have consolidated the two appeals to address the following issues, which we have rephrased as follows:1 1. Did the trial court err when it exercised its revisory power to enter the Amended Order? Did the trial court err when it denied appellant's Motion to Vacate the Amended Order?

2.

We answer both questions presented in the negative and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial judge.

1

The issues on appeal, as framed by appellant, are: Did the trial court err when it exercised its revisory power under Maryland Rule 2

Download Mills v. Mills.pdf

Maryland Law