Maryland Divorce Attorney Blog

The recent economic turmoil has had a devastating effect on the economic circumstances of many, even in prosperous and economically stable counties like Howard, Carroll, Baltimore and Anne Arundel. As a result, Maryland Divorce lawyers are fielding inquiries about whether alimony awarded in more prosperous times is subject to modification.Section 8-103 of the Family Law Article prohibits a court from modifying any agreement or settlement in which a spouse has expressly waived alimony or any provision for alimony that specifically states that it is not subject to court modification. Also under section section 11-107, temporary alimony can not be extended unless the recipient petitions the court before the period of the award has expired.

Absent such a prohibition, a court may modify alimony in appropriate cases. First of all there must be a change of circumstances that is material or substantial. The court will not allow either party to litigate an issue that was or could have been litigated at the time of the original award. section 11-107 provides that the court may extend the period for temporary alimony if circumstances arise during the period that would lead to a "harsh and inequitable result without an extension". Such modification could include making an award of indefinite duration. The same section of law also authorizes the court to modify the amount of alimony "on petition of either party....as circumstances and justice require."

Any individual hit by the economic downturn, who is the subject of a prior alimony award not subject to a prohibition against modification, may be well advised to review his or her economic situation with an experienced Maryland Divorce Lawyer.

section 11-107.pdf

The fifth amendment to the U.S. Constitution gives every individual the right against self incrimination. While this right is typically invoked in criminal proceedings and Congressional hearings, it is also seen in civil cases including divorce proceedings. Maryland Divorce Lawyers know that the right to refuse to testify frequently arises in cases involving adultery. Pursuant to Section 10-501 of the Maryland Criminal Code, adultery is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of up to $10. This ancient state law gives errant spouses an alternative to admitting adultery or committing perjury.

Unlike the criminal law arena, the court may draw an adverse inference from the invocation of the refusal to testify. This can be costly in a marital property dispute. In Turner vs. Turner, there was evidence that husband had used illegal drugs and was involved with another women during the marriage. He invoked the right not to answer questions relating to his withdrawal of funds from a joint bank account of husband and wife. Wife claimed that he had dissipated these funds. The trial court agreed and her award under the Marital Property Act was augmented as a result. This decision was upheld on appeal. In part the appellate court upheld the ruling on the grounds that it was appropriate to draw an adverse inference from husband's decision to plead the fifth.

The take away from this opinion is that murderers, rapists and other felons can invoke the privilege without consequence. Parties to divorce are well advised to think strategically. It may be a way of avoiding embarrassing testimony but can be costly.