Maryland Divorce Attorney Blog

Divorce cases in high income counties such as Howard, Montgomery, Anne Arundel, Carroll and Baltimore frequently involve setting support based on parental incomes that fluctuates substantially. This is occurring more frequently in the current roller coaster economy. A recent opinion provides guidance on how the courts should deal with the ups and downs of parental income in calculating child support.

The decision in Lorincz vs. Lorincz involved a mother who left a graduate program at Hopkins School of Medicine to attend law school. One of the issues in that opinion arose because she earned $36,424 during the summer as an associate in a New York Law Firm but had no income during the 9 months of law school. The trial court had calculated child support by chopping up the year into two parts, one during mother's high income summer months and second during her nine months in school. On appeal, that approach was rejected. Instead, the Court of Special Appeals ruled that child support payments should have been computed based on mother's annualized income. According to the opinion, when calculation child support, "per annum analysis remains a safe harbor."

While the facts of Lorincz are unusual, the opinion addresses an issue that occurs frequently in diverse cases involving once a year bonuses, profit sharing, capital gains, and income from commissions or profits from closely held businesses. It may also have some applicability to executives who experience temporary unemployment. It is more apt to be applied in cases involving higher income parents who are not living "hand to mouth". While a "per annum analysis" does not appear to be the only possible approach, the opinion clearly demonstrates that in many cases, periods of high and low income cannot be "hermetically sealed off" from each other in calculating child support.

Efforts to update Maryland's Child Support Guidelines will be redoubled in the 2010 legislative session. As a Maryland Child Support Attorney and former member of the Maryland House of Delegates who served on the Judiciary Committee when they were enacted, I can attest to the fact that the original guidelines bill was passed with no significant opposition. However, determined efforts to modernize the guidelines in the 2009 legislative session did not fair as well. Some opponents seem to be concerned about raising child support obligations in an economic downturn. Proponents of updating the guidelines contend that current law does not reflect more recent estimates of child rearing costs.The House Judiciary Committee is hoping to hear this Fall from an expert who has studied this issue.In part there may be an impact from over 20 years of inflation. For any given income level a greater share of the expenses are non discretionary. This might justify a greater share of income being apportioned to the children of the household.

There can be no dispute about another limitation of the current guidelines. They are based on a schedule in the statute that applies only to combined parental income up to $10,000 per month. In cases involving higher combined incomes, the court typically extrapolates child care expenses and apportions them based on the "Income Shared" methodology. While this may lead to a satisfactory result, it means that child support awards are less predictable in higher income counties such as Howard, Baltimore, Montgomery and Anne Arundel.

My experience in the legislature tells me that pressure will continue to build on members of the House Judiciary and Senate Judicial Proceedings Committees during the 2010 legislative session, scheduled from January to April. Any true reform bill would pass overwhelmingly on the floor of both the House and Senate. Therefore legislative action to update Maryland's child support guidelines can be expected as they pass their 20th anniversary. If a new law is enacted, it is likely that the legislature will set an effective date and establish other provisions designed to protect the courts' dockets from a flood of requests to modify existing orders.