Preview:

REPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 2339 September Term, 2006

ROBERT J. WALTER v. SUSAN L. WALTER

Eyler, De borah S ., Barbe ra, Karwacki, Robert L. (Ret'd, Specially Assigned), JJ.

Opinion by Eyler, Deborah S., J.

Filed: September 5, 2008 * Mary Ellen Bar bera, now an Asso ciate Judge of the Court of Appeals, participated in the hearing and conference of this case while an active member of this Co urt; she participated in the adoption of this opin ion as a me mber of th is Court.

Robert J. Walter ("Robert") challenges a ruling by the Circuit Court for Frederick County granting indefinite alimony, incident to a limited divorce, to Susan L. Walter ("Susan"), his wife, and awarding Susan attorneys' fees. He poses four questions1 for review, which we have consolidated and rephrased as follows: I. Did the trial court err or abuse its di scre tion by granting indefinite alimony to Susan in a proceeding for limited divorce? Did the trial court err or abuse its discretion by awarding attorneys' fees to Susan?

II.

For the following reasons, we shall vacate the judgment of the circuit court on indefinite alimony and remand th e case to that court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion; and we shall vacate the attorneys' fee award.

FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
Robert and Susan w ere married on Nov ember 24 , 1979. Th eir marriage produced two children : Alison , born in 1982, a nd So phia, bo rn in 19 87. Before marrying, the p arties each h ad attended college and earned a bachelor of science degree in marketing. For the first eight years of their marriage, the parties moved from state to state, depending upon the job ma rket. Robe rt had a num ber of jobs that he lost.

1

The questions presented, as phrased by Robert, are:

"1. Did the Trial Court err as a matter of la w by failing to properly apply the standard s set f orth in the Family L aw A rticle for a war ding alim ony? 2. Did the Trial Court err as a matter of law by failing to properly apply the standards set forth in the Family Law Article for awarding inde finit e alim ony? 3. Was it error for the Court to award indefinite alimony when the Trial Court did not determine the amount o f a mone tary award an d failed to co nsider fully the financial needs and financial resources of both parties? 4. Did the Trial Court err as a matter of law by failing to apply the standards set forth in the Family Law Article for awarding attorney's fees?"

Although Susan was working as well, Robert was earning more money than she was, so the couple's moves usually were determined by Robert's job opportunities. Robert's jobs first were in teaching and then were in chemical sales. In 1987, Robert's job brought the family to Frederick, Maryland, where they settled and stayed. During some periods when the children were young, Susan remained at home; for the most part, however, she worked outside the home in marketing and furniture sales. She also worked in the insurance industry for a time. In 1994, R obert fo rmed h is own comp any, An tiEntrop ics, Inc. Since the company's inception, it has been run from the family home. Rob ert spends most of his work time out of the house at clients' work sites.2 During the marriage, the parties lived a comfortable lifestyle. They purchased a house in a nice suburban neighborhood. They accumulated some stocks. Each has an IRA, although the record is scanty on that point. The parties do not have any savings. It was und isputed that, in 1996, Susan accused Robert of abusing the children (then ages 14 and 9 ), and mad e a report to th at effect to th e local child welfare authorities. The authorities conducted an investigation and determined that there had been no abuse. The abuse allegation against Robert was closed as "ruled out." Susan acknowledged in her testimony that, from then on, there was a rift between the parties "that's really never been cured."

There is no inform ation in the record about the nature of AntiEntropics's business. It appears to have some connection to the chemicals business. 2

2

In 2005, Robert admitted to Susan that he had had a number of extramarital affairs, beginning in 2001. He claimed to have started to engage in that beha vior after Su san told him repeatedly that she did not want to stay married to him. Susan acknowledged in her testimony that the parties had discussed getting divorced on a number of o ccasions before they separated. On June 1 8, 2005 , the parti es sepa rated, by a greem ent. Susan mov ed to Log odi, Indiana, where she has extended family. She started working as a sales associate at Englert's, a furniture store. She moved into a two-bedroom house , with a yard. Robert remained in the fam ily home. By then, Alison was 23 and n o longer livin g at home . Sophia was 18. She chose to continue living in the family home with Robert. She moved out of the family ho me in S eptem ber 200 6. On June 20, 2 005, two days after moving, Susan filed a complaint for limited divorce on the ground of voluntary sepa ratio n. Sh e req uested al imony pendente lite, indefinite alim ony, and attorneys' fees. Robert filed a timely answer. T he case proceeded through discov ery. Since the separation, Robert has paid the mortgage, taxes, and insurance o n the fam ily home and all of the expenses related to the home's upkeep. That total cost is $2,534.97 per month. From June 2005 through March 2006, Robert sent Susan $500 per month. The parties soug ht to achiev e an amica ble divorce , by negotiation th rough co unsel. In March 2006, the parties reached an impasse in their efforts to ac hieve a settlem ent. Robe rt stoppe d send ing mo ney to Su san at th at time.

3

On Novemb er 9, 2006, the case went to a merits hearing on the issues of limited divorce, alimony, and attorneys' fees. Both parties testified. Only one witness was called to corroborate the parties' voluntary separation. The parties each introduced into evidence a Rule 9-203 (a) fina ncial sta temen t. In addition, Susan moved into evidence checking account statements for AntiEntropics, from January 1, 2005, through Septemb er 30, 2006 ; a typed list of dep osits made into that account during the same time period; checking acc ount statements for R obert from June 22, 2005, through Septemb er 20, 2006 ; a typed list of the d eposits ma de into that account during that same time period; Susan's pay stub from Englert's for the week ending October 29, 2006; joint checking account statements for Robert and Susan from December 9, 2004, through January 10, 2006; and a typed list of the deposits made into that account during that same time period. After the evidence was closed and the lawyers ha d presented argumen t, the trial judge ruled from the bench . She granted Susan a limited divorce, on the grou nd of voluntary separation; awarded Susan indefinite alimony of $1,500 per month, retroactive to April 6, 2006; established an alimony arrearage of $10,500, entered as a judgment against Robert; and awarded Susan $6,425.92 in attorneys' fees. On December 2, 2006, the court entered a judgm ent me morializ ing its ru ling. Ro bert no ted a tim ely appea l. We shall include additional facts as relevant to our discussion of the issues.

DISCUSSION
I.

4

Alimony Robert challenges the trial court's award of indefinite alimony to Susan on three bases: a) the court "erred as a matter of law" and made clearly erroneous factual findings when considering his financial resou rces and n eeds; b) the c ourt erred an d abused its discretion by awarding indefinite alimony incident to a limited divorce; and c) the cou rt's "uncons cionable disparity" finding was clearly erroneous. Because we agree with Rob ert's first argumen t, that the court m ade certain c learly erroneous factual find ings, we sh all vacate the alimony award and remand the matter for further proceedings. We shall address Robert's second argument for guidance on remand. The nature of the error we have found is such that we need not addres s the third bas is for Rob ert's argum ent. (a) Assertions of Clear Error Pursuant to Md. Code (1957, 20 06 Rep l. Vol., 2007 Supp.), section 11-106(b) of the Family Law A rticle ("FL") , in deciding w hether to m ake an aw ard of alim ony and, if so, in what amount, a circuit court mus t consider "a ll factors nec essary for a fa ir and equita ble award," including: (1) the ability of the party seeking alimony to be wholly or partly selfsupporting; (2) the time necessary for the party seeking alimony to gain sufficient education or training to e nable that p arty to find suitab le employm ent; (3) the standard of living that the parties established during their marriage; (4) the duration of the marriage; (5) the contributions, monetary and n on-monetary, of each p arty to the wellbein g of the f amil y; (6) the circumstances that contributed to the estrangement of the parties; (7) th e age of ea ch party; 5

(8) th e physical and men tal co ndition o f eac h party; (9) the ability of the party from whom alimony is sought to meet that party's need s wh ile m eetin g the need s of the party se ekin g alim ony; (10) any agreement between the parties; [and] (11) the financial needs and resources of each party, including: (i) all income and assets, including property that does not produce income; (ii) any award made under

Download Walter v. Walter.pdf

Maryland Law