Preview:

REPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 5983 September Term, 1998

WALTER J. SCZUDLO

v.

JULIA BERRY

Wenner, Davis, Salmon, JJ.

Opinion by Davis, J.

Filed: December 30, 1999

On February 20, 1996, appellant Walter J. Sczudlo and appellee Julia Berry received a Judgment of Absolute Divorce from the Circuit Court for Montgomery County (Chapin, J.). three children: Lauren, born May 12, 1983; The couple have Elizabeth, born

September 16, 1985; and Walter, born August 8, 1988.

The judgment

incorporated but did not merge a Separation and Property Settlement Agreement, which provided, in part, that the parties have joint custody of their three minor children, and that each parent would pay for the costs incurred by the parents while the children were with them, except that appellant additionally agreed to pay

appellee $1,200 a month in child support.

The agreement further

provided that each parent would contribute equally to activities for the children to which they both agreed. On March 25, 1998, appellant filed a Motion to Vacate or Modify Child Support Order. Appellant ceased paying the agreed Subsequently,

child support amount at the end of March 1998.

appellee filed an Opposition to the Motion to Vacate or Modify Child Support Order and a Motion for Contempt and other Relief. Appellant filed a response to appellee's opposition and later filed an opposition to appellee's motion for contempt. A hearing was

held in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County on September 3, 1998, on both appellant's motion to vacate or modify child support and appellee's motion for contempt. trial court issued its order and On November 23, 1998, the opinion in which it found

appellant in contempt and denied his motion to vacate or alter

- 2 child support. The court ordered appellant to pay appellee $8,400

in back child support, $2,382.16 as reimbursement to appellee for appellant's share of the children's expenses, and awarded appellee fifty percent of her attorney's fees. On December 4, 1998,

appellant filed a Motion for Stay of Order and a Motion to Shorten Time and an Amended Motion to Shorten Time. The court, on This appeal

December 10, 1998, denied the motion to shorten time. followed.

Meanwhile, appellee filed an opposition to the motion to

stay the order on December 22, 1998 and the court denied the motion to stay on January 5, 1999. Appellant presents three questions

for our review, which we rephrase: I. Did the trial court err in denying appellant's motion to modify child support when it determined that no material change of circumstance occurred, despite appellant's loss of his job? Did the trial court err in awarding appellee reimbursement for the children's expenses in violation of the parties' agreement?

II.

III. Did the trial court err in awarding appellee fifty percent of her attorney's fees absent a determination by the court of the reasonableness of said fees? We answer all three questions in the affirmative and, accordingly, reverse the judgment of the circuit court and remand.

- 3 -

FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The parties to this action received a Judgment of Absolute Divorce on February 20, 1996, which incorporated but did not merge a Separation and Property Settlement Agreement. That agreement,

dated November 23, 1994, provided that the parents have joint custody of their three minor children and each would be responsible for expenses while the children were in his or her custody, except that appellant would pay $1,200 a month in child support to appellee. Additionally, the parties would share equally in the

expenses incurred for any traveling the children did without a parent and for activities to which both parties agreed. At the

time the agreement was executed, appellant earned approximately $115,000 to $120,000 annually. September 3, 1998, appellee's At the time of the hearing on 1998 income was approximately

$46,000, while appellant's 1997 earnings totaled $174,118. Appellant's employment terminated in early April 1998. anticipation of his loss of employment, appellant In

contacted

appellee to request suspension of his child support obligation until he was once again employed. Unable to reach an agreement

with appellee, he filed a motion to vacate or modify his child support with the court on March 25, 1998. ceased paying his child support obligation. Subsequently, appellant In response, appellee

filed an opposition to appellant's motion and a motion for contempt for appellant's failure to maintain his child support payments.

- 4 The September hearing was held and, following testimony, the trial judge took the matter under advisement and issued an order and opinion on November 23, 1998, which ordered appellant to pay appellee $8,400 in back child support and $2,382.16 for The

reimbursement of appellant's share of the children's expenses.

court also found appellant in contempt and awarded appellee fifty percent of her attorney's fees. appellant's material maintained motion to modify Additionally, the court denied child support, existed even finding that no

change his

in

circumstance of

because though

appellant unemployed.

standard

living

Appellant timely noted this appeal.

DISCUSSION I
Appellant first contends that the trial court erred in

determining that no material change in circumstance occurred to justify a modification in child support. Appellant asserts that

the evidence of his termination of employment was sufficient to show a material change in circumstance and, accordingly, the court should have modified appellant's child support obligation to

reflect his current financial status. Section 12-104 of the Family Law Article permits the trial court to modify an amount of child support upon a showing of a material change in circumstance. MD. CODE (1999 Repl. Vol.), FAM.

- 5 LAW (F.L.)

Download Sczudlo v. Berry.pdf

Maryland Law