Preview:

Solomon v. Solomon, No. 116, Sept. Term 2003. Opinion by Harrell, J. FAMILY LAW - DIVORCE - MARITAL PROPERTY AWARD- TAX CONSEQUENCES - NON-EQUITY COUNTRY CLUB MEMBERSHIP- ADEQUACY OF INDEFINITE ALIMONY AWARD AMOUNT - INTANGIBLE ASSETS AS MARITAL PROPERTY Husband and wife raised several issues regarding the valuation of marital property and the appropriate amount of an indefinite alimony award. In those regards, tax consequences may be considered in establishing the amount of a marital property award as an "other factor," under section 8-205(b)(11) of the Family Law Article, when they are immediate and specific, or not speculative. A non-equity, non-transferable country club membership is not property under the Marital Property Act and therefore does not constitute marital property because it cannot be converted into a monetary amount for equitable distribution. When indefinite alimony is awarded to relieve unconscionable disparity in post-divorce income, the alimony amount must be sufficient to relieve the unconscionably disparate situation. One test to determine whether disparity has been relieved is a relative percentage comparison of the parties' post-award incomes. A trial court's judgment on dissipation of marital assets will not be disturbed if the judgment is reasonable and supported by competent evidence under the clearly erroneous standard.

Circuit Court for Montgomery County Case # 11305

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 116 September Term, 2003

MICHAEL F. SOLOMON v. NANCY L. SOLOMON

Bell, C.J. Raker Wilner Cathell Harrell Battaglia Greene, JJ.

Opinion by Harrell, J.

Filed: September 13, 2004

In 2000, Michael Solomon, Petitioner, and Nancy L. Solomon, Respondent, then husband and wife, initiated proceedings in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County seeking an absolute divorce, determinations as to child custody and support, and a resolution of the financial aspects of their marriage and divorce. The Circuit Court, among other things, examined the financial characteristics and lifestyle of the parties and identified and valued their marital property. Of particular relevance to the case before us, the Circuit Court, in August 2002, granted a marital award of $550,000 and $50,000 in attorney's fees to Mrs. Solomon, and ordered Mr. Solomon to pay her $6,000 in monthly rehabilitative alimony for three years, to be followed by $5,000 in monthly indefinite alimony. Mr. Solomon appealed to the Court of Special Appeals. Mrs. Solomon filed a crossappeal. In an extensive unreported opinion, the Court of Special Appeals affirmed the Circuit Court's judgment in part and reversed in part. Both parties petitioned this Court to grant a writ of certiorari. We granted both petitions. Solomon v. Solomon, 379 Md. 225, 841 A.2d 339 (2004). The following four questions are presented for our consideration. By Mr. Solomon: I. Whether the Circuit Court and the Court of Special Appeals erred by failing to consider tax consequences as "immediate and specific" in this case. Whether the Court of Special Appeals erred in vacating the Circuit Court's $5,000 monthly indefinite alimony award based on its determination that the trial court abused its discretion in determining the amount of the alimony award.

II.

By Mrs. Solomon:

III.

Whether the Court of Special Appeals erred by failing to reverse the Circuit Court's finding that there was no irrefutable evidence that Mr. Solomon dissipated his interest in OSI [Orthopedic Systems International, Inc.]. Whether the Court of Special Appeals erred in reversing the Circuit Court's finding that Mr. Solomon's country club membership is marital property, which has monetary value and can be part of the basis for the marital reward.

IV.

I. A. The Solomons married on 26 May 1986. Three children were born during their marriage: John, Michael, and Hayden.1 The Circuit Court ordered joint legal custody of the children as part of the divorce, with Mr. Solomon maintaining primary physical custody of John and Mrs. Solomon having primary physical custody of Hayden and Michael. Mr. Solomon also has a daughter from a previous marriage.2 At the time of the parties' marriage, Mr. Solomon owned a home in Potomac, Maryland. He had been a tax attorney with a law firm for ten years before the marriage, at an annual salary of almost $500,000. Prior to her marriage to Mr. Solomon, Mrs. Solomon completed three years of college, but did not obtain a degree. She lived with her parents

At the time of trial, John was 13 years old, Hayden 15, and Michael 17. Each suffers from learning disabilities. At the time of trial, Mr. Solomon's daughter, Katrina, was 21 years old. Mr. Solomon provided financial support for Katrina.
2
2

1

during college and earned income sporadically in various administrative support positions.

During the marriage, Mr. Solomon's annual income grew steadily, reaching $1,050,000 in 2001. Mrs. Solomon and Mr. Solomon agreed that Mrs. Solomon would not work during the marriage. With Mrs. Solomon at home and Mr. Solomon as the breadwinner, the Solomons enjoyed a relatively luxurious lifestyle

Download Solomon v. Solomon.pdf

Maryland Law