Unreported

ZOA WILSON v. STEVEN MARZO

Family law — Divorce — Motion to set aside On October 6, 2011, appellant Zoa Wilson moved to set aside an enrolled judgment of absolute divorce, which was entered over four years earlier, on February 6, 2007. The Circuit Court ...

Read More »

NAYIRI K. POOCHIKIAN v. VICKEN K. POOCHIKIAN

Nayiri Poochikian (“Wife”), appellant, and Dr. Vicken Poochikian (“Husband”), appellee, were married in August 1982 and separated in 2007. On September 21, 2010, the Circuit Court for Montgomery County entered a judgment granting the parties an absolute divorce. In June 2010, before the divorce was finalized, the parties entered into a written “Voluntary Separation and Property Settlement Agreement” (“the Settlement Agreement”) that required Husband to pay Wife $8,000 per month in indefinite alimony, subject to reconsideration once the marital residence sold. In May 2013, Husband filed a motion in the circuit court seeking to modify the alimony payments. The court held a bench trial on the matter on March 4–6, 2014. On April 9, 2014, the court granted Husband’s motion, and decreased the alimony obligation to $5,000 per month. In this appeal, Wife challenges the circuit court’s order reducing Husband’s monthly alimony obligation. QUESTIONS PRESENTED Appellant presented three questions for our review, which we have consolidated into a single question and rephrased as follows: Did the circuit court commit legal error or abuse its discretion by decreasing Husband’s monthly alimony obligation from $8,000 to $5,000?

Read More »

ZACHARIAH GARNER v. EMILY GARNER

ALIMONY/CHILD SUPPORT -- MOTION TO MODIFY ALIMONY AND CHILD SUPPORT -- NEED FOR A HEARING Appellant, Zachariah Garner, appeals the denial of his second motion to modify pendente lite alimony, child support, and other financial assistance (hereinafter “second motion to modify”) without a hearing in the Circuit Court for Howard County. He presents one question for our review, which we quote: Did the circuit court err when it denied appellant’s “Second Motion to Modify Pendente Lite Alimony, Child Support, and Other Financial Assistance to Wife and/or Children and for Other Relief and Request for Hearing” without an opportunity for a hearing on those issues?

Read More »

JEANE M. GAIENNIE v. STEPHEN R. DELLERS

REHABILITATIVE ALIMONY -- CALCULATION -- This case stems from a judgment of absolute divorce entered in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County involving appellant, Jeane M. Gaiennie, and appellee, Stephen R. Dellers. Following a four day hearing, the court divided the parties’ assets, granted appellant a monetary award and rehabilitative alimony, and granted appellee a “credit” of $131,250 for the marital home. Appellant appealed and presents five questions for our consideration, which we have rephrased and consolidated for clarity: I. Whether the circuit court erred in denying appellant’s motion to alter/amend? II. Whether the circuit court erred in its monetary award to appellee? III. Whether the circuit court erred in its alimony award to appellant?

Read More »

ANTHONY LEKETA v. DONNA B. LEKETA

On January 14, 2014, the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County granted appellee/cross-appellant, Donna Leketa (“Wife”), an absolute divorce from appellant/cross-appellee, Anthony Leketa (“Husband”). The circuit court amended that judgment on March 12, 2014, dividing the marital property, making a monetary award of $150,000.00 to Wife, and denying Wife’s request for alimony and attorney’s fees. On appeal, Husband challenges the court’s calculation of marital property, the court’s calculation of Crawford credits,1 and the court’s grant of a monetary award. On cross-appeal, Wife makes similar challenges: she argues error in the court’s calculation of marital property, the court’s calculation of Crawford credits, the court’s calculation of a monetary award, as well as the court’s denial of alimony and attorney’s fees. Questions Presented We consolidated the questions presented by both Wife and Husband and determine whether the circuit court erred in calculating the marital property of the parties and, if so, whether the circuit court erred in using that calculation to determine the disposition of the marital property and the appropriateness of a monetary award, alimony, and attorney’s fees. We agree with both Husband and Wife that the court erred in calculating the marital property and, thus, we vacate the circuit court’s judgment in part, and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Read More »

CYNTHIA PARLATO LANGO v. TERRY NORMAN LANGO

In the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County, Cynthia Parlato Lango, the appellant, and Terry Norman Lango, the appellee, were divorced. The court enforced the parties’ prenuptial agreement, denied alimony, denied either party an interest in the other party’s retirement assets, ordered the marital home sold and the proceeds divided equally, granted Terry a monetary award of $10,000, ordered Cynthia to pay $3,000 of Terry’s attorneys’ fees, and granted judgment in favor of Terry for $92,543.20, arising from Cynthia’s breach of three separation agreements entered into between the parties. Cynthia appeals, presenting four questions, which we have combined and rephrased as follows: I. Did the circuit court err by entering judgment in favor of Terry for damages and penalties arising from her breach of three separation agreements? II. Did the circuit court err by awarding attorneys’ fees to Terry without determining the actual amount and the reasonableness of his fees? We answer both questions in the affirmative. We shall vacate the judgment against Cynthia for breach of the separation agreements and for attorneys’ fees, and remand for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

Read More »

MARK JOSEPH JACKSON v. KAREN MICHELLE JACKSON

In this divorce proceeding, Appellant Mark Joseph Jackson (Mark) contends that the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County erred in not granting him a continuance or imposing sanctions on Appellee Karen Michelle Jackson (Karen). We note that the court had already granted Mark a continuance when he was unrepresented by counsel prior to the divorce being granted, and we see no unfairness in the circuit court’s denial of a second continuance when he was represented by counsel and where both parties failed to attend court-ordered mediation to resolve property issues. Accordingly, the judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.

Read More »