Preview:

REPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 00491 September Term, 2004 ___________________________________

JOHN RICHARDS v. DONNA RICHARDS _________________________________ Murphy, C. J., Hollander, Sharer, JJ. _________________________________ Opinion by Sharer, J. _________________________________ Filed: December 22, 2005

The parties to this appeal were divorced by judgment of the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, granted on the counter

complaint of appellee, Donna Richards, filed in response to the complaint of appellant, John Richards. Aggrieved at the financial aspects of the judgment, John Richards has noted this appeal. Appellant has presented for our review three assignments of error, which, as recast, are: I. II. Whether the circuit court erred in its determination of the monetary award. Whether the circuit reserving alimony. court erred in

III. Whether the circuit court erred in its award of counsel fees to appellee. Finding neither error nor abuse of discretion, we shall affirm the judgment of the circuit court. FACTUAL BACKGROUND The Parties Appellant and appellee were married on September 21, 1986. The judgment of divorce was entered on April 14, 2004. were born of the marriage. During the marriage, John Richards was employed by the No children

federal government, earning, at the time of this litigation, approximately $100,000 per year. His health is unremarkable.

Donna Richards, 60 years of age at the time of trial, also worked for the federal government during the marriage. contrast to appellant's, is fragile. Her health, in

In April 1990, she suffered In addition

an on-the-job injury and has been rated as disabled.

to

her

physical

disability, to work

she

has

a the

history injury,

of she

emotional receives

instability.

Unable

since

benefits from Social Security, private disability insurance,1 and worker's compensation. She is eligible to receive Federal

Employees' Retirement System (FERS) benefits. The current benefits provide her with a total monthly income of approximately $3,000. The Property Mrs. Goldberg This litigation brings into play certain property and of appellee's mother, Celia Goldberg. assets

In 1994, Mrs. Goldberg

established a revocable trust into which she placed most of her assets. Donna Richards is a co-trustee. Mrs. Goldberg also

established two bank accounts: an interest-bearing checking account at the Bank of America in Florida, and a savings account at the Torrington Savings Bank in Connecticut. In creating the accounts,

Mrs. Goldberg named both John and Donna Richards as joint tenants with rights of survivorship.2 In 1998, Mrs. Goldberg entered an assisted living home. As

her health deteriorated, appellant and appellee assumed a larger role in managing her financial affairs. In 1998, they consolidated her various banking and brokerage accounts, held in the trust, into

This benefit, currently $947.00 each month, will cease when appellee reaches the age of 65. The record demonstrates numerous checks made payable to appellant through the Bank of America accounts.
2

1

-2-

one Schwab One Account. Appellee, as co-trustee, had check signing authority over this account. During Mrs. Goldberg's lifetime,

checks were made payable to appellant on various occasions from the account.3 Many checks from that account, payable to John Richards,

were deposited into the parties' joint checking account. Mrs. Goldberg died in 2000. In accord with her will, Donna By way of disposition, the

Richards qualified as the executor.

will created a testamentary trust, of which Donna Richards and her brother, Mrs. trustees. Goldberg's only other heir, were named as co-

The will was silent as to John Richards.

Her United

States Estate Tax return

designated as "joint" the two bank

accounts as to which appellant and appellee were the survivors. The Parties Appellant states in his brief that, during the marriage, he and appellee "co-mingled and merged all of their financial assets so that most of the assets were joint." Appellee concedes the

point and further claims that appellant "wielded total control" over the parties' finances. Shortly after the death of Mrs. Goldberg, the parties opened

Of course, the parties disagree as to the reasons for these checks. Appellant asserts they were "reimbursements" for his services to Mrs. Goldberg's estate and for other expenses relating to the care of Mrs. Goldberg. Appellee asserts that appellant was simply milking an inheritance away from her, as is evident, she claims, through his dominant stance over the parties' financial matters. The record demonstrates that numerous checks were made payable to appellant from Mrs. Goldberg's consolidated Schwab One Account. (8/20/00, $10,000; 2/19/01, $2,993.55; 3/4/01, $5,505.82; 4/8/01, $2,610.69; 4/8/01, $11,523.50; 5/2/01, $4,380.25; 6/17/01, $9,505.33; 6/17/01, $266.56; 7/17/01, $1,710.97; 8/15/01, $4,417.30; 8/28/01, $1,553.90.)

3

-3-

a joint Schwab One Account with the rights of survivorship. initial deposit of $110,000 was made with funds from

The Mrs.

Goldberg's Bank of America and Torrington accounts (respectively, $85,000 and $25,000). On the same day, appellee opened an

individual Schwab One Account. came from inherited funds.

Her initial deposit of $34,838.63

Appellee designated appellant as her

attorney in fact with authority to draw from the account. On numerous occasions, checks payable to appellant were drawn on the account. In 2001, the parties purchased real estate in Reno, Nevada, the source of funds being the joint Schwab One Account. Appellant

testified that those funds came through Mrs. Goldberg's estate. Appellant also claims that he contributed $40,232.40 from his premarital Schwab Account into the joint account. court determined the Nevada property to be marital. In 2002, appellant removed about $100,000 from the joint Schwab One Account - one-half of the account balance at the time. At the time of trial, appellant had approximately $30,000 of that amount remaining in his individual Schwab One Account. The circuit court found those funds to be appellee's non-marital property. We shall address additional facts as necessary for context. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Suit was filed by appellant on February 6, 2003. Appellee filed a counter-complaint for absolute divorce, seeking alimony, a -4The circuit

monetary award, and other relief, including counsel fees.

Soon

thereafter, the parties filed a joint statement concerning marital property, pursuant to Md. Rule 9-207. Trial was held on March 29 and 30, 2004, and judgment was entered on April 14, 2004. the court ordered: ORDERED that [appellee's] request for an award of alimony is hereby reserved, and it is further, * * * ORDERED that the real property located in Reno, Nevada is determined to be marital property, and said property shall be sold and the net proceeds of sale divided equally between the parties, and it is further, * * * ORDERED that [appellant] shall pay [appellee] the sum of $105,000 as adjustment of the equities of the parties the Reno, Nevada real property, and it further, to an in is Relevant to the issues in this appeal,

ORDERED that the Schwab One account titled in [appellant's] name is determined to be [appellee's] non-marital property, with a value of $30,000, and it is further, * * * ORDERED that a monetary award is hereby granted in favor of [appellee], and against [appellant] in the amount of $207,290 as an adjustment of the equities of the parties in and to the marital property listed on Schedule A, the Reno, Nevada real property, and the Schwab One account, and it is further, ORDERED that a judgment is hereby entered -5-

in favor of [appellee] and against [appellant] in the amount of $207,290, and it is further, * * * ORDERED that [appellant] shall pay to [appellee] as a contribution toward her attorney's fees incurred in connection with this proceeding the sum of $17,000, and it is further, ORDERED that a judgment is hereby entered in favor of [the law firm representing appellee] in the amount of $17,000[.] Appellant filed his timely Notice of Appeal on May 7, 2004. DISCUSSION I. Whether the circuit court erred in its determination of the monetary award. for three reasons, that the circuit court

We

hold,

appropriately granted appellee a monetary award in the amount of $207,290. contained First, the court correctly found that the $30,000 in appellant's individual Schwab One Account was

appellee's non-marital property.

Second, the court exercised

proper discretion when it adjusted the parties' equities in the Nevada property and other marital property. Finally, the court

articulated its consideration of the requisite statutory factors in granting a monetary award. Standard of Review In our review of the monetary award, we shall apply two standards of review. First, we utilize the "clearly erroneous"

standard to the court's determination of what is, and what is not, -6-

marital property because "[o]rdinarily, it is a question of fact as to whether all or a portion of an asset is marital or non-marital property." Innerbichler v. Innerbichler, 132 Md. App. 207, 229 (2000); see also Md. Rule 8-131(c). supported by substantial evidence Factual findings that are are not clearly erroneous.

Collins v. Collins, 144 Md. App. 395, 409 (2002).

Second, as to

the court's decision to grant a monetary award, and the amount thereof, we apply an abuse of discretion standard of review. Gallagher v. Gallagher, 118 Md. App. 567, 576 (1997). Within that

context, "we may not substitute our judgment for that of the fact finder, even if we might have reached a different result."

Innerbichler, supra, 132 Md. App. at 230. The court granted appellee a monetary award in the amount of $207,290. appellant's That amount is composed of: (1) $30,000 (the monies in individual Schwab One Account, which the court

determined to be non-marital property of appellee); (2) $105,000 (the "adjustment of the equities" of the parties in the Nevada Property); and (3) a marital property adjustment in the amount of $72,290. Appellant challenges two aspects of the monetary award: the $30,000 Schwab One Account and the adjustment of equities in the Nevada real estate. We discuss the pertinent law and proceed to appellant's contentions. Monetary Award When a party seeks a monetary award, the court must follow a -7-

three step procedure: First, for each disputed item of property, the court must determine whether it is marital or non-marital. Second, the court must determine the value of all marital property. Third, the court must determine if the division of marital property according to title will be unfair; if so, the court may make an award to rectify the inequity. Collins, supra, 144 Md. App. at 409 (internal citations omitted) (citing Doser v. Doser, 106 Md App. 329, 349-50 (1995)); see also Md. Rule

Download Richards v. Richards.pdf

Maryland Law