Adelakun v. Adelakun

1

JENNIFER ADELAKUN v. ADENIYI ADELAKUN

No. 33-2024

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

September 26, 2024

Circuit Court for Howard County Case No. C-13-FM-23-001251

Graeff, Tang, Eyler, Deborah S. (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ.

OPINION

Graeff, J.

This appeal arises from an order issued by the Circuit Court for Howard County denying a request made by appellant, Jennifer Adelakun ("Mother"), for pendente lite alimony and pendente lite child support from appellee, Adeniyi Adelakun ("Father"). Mother contends that the court erred in denying her requests.

For the reasons set forth below, we shall dismiss this interlocutory appeal.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Mother and Father were married on August 4, 2016. They have three young children together.

I. Initial Filings

On July 19, 2023, Mother filed a Complaint for Absolute Divorce By Mutual Consent in the Circuit Court for Howard County. She asked the court to, among other things, grant her primary physical, and sole legal, custody of the children, child support (retroactively, pendente lite and permanently), and alimony (retroactively, pendente lite, rehabilitative, and permanently). ^[1] In her complaint, Mother alleged that she was unemployed and not currently earning any income. She stated that she required spousal support from Father, who earned "enough to provide spousal support . . . including payment of the mortgage on the Marital Home."

On August 14, 2023, Father filed a Counter-Complaint for Limited Divorce, seeking sole legal, and primary physical, custody of the children, or alternatively, shared physical custody, with Father "being the primary." Father also asked the court to award him child support for an amount "in accordance with the Maryland Child Support Guidelines, or an amount above the guidelines, if applicable." Father alleged that Mother was a licensed attorney, gainfully employed, and "capable of contributing to the support of the minor children."

II. Pendente Lite Hearing

On October 31, 2023, the magistrate held a pendente lite hearing. Mother requested primary custody of the children, use and possession of the marital home, $8,200 a month from Father, in addition to his continuing to pay the mortgage on the marital home, and $50,000 in prospective attorney's fees. Mother testified that she earned $520 per month from a daycare center she owned, and this was "the only income that [she was] generating." She did not receive additional income, owner's draws, commissions, or bonuses from the company.

Mother also had an ownership interest in J. Anukem and Associates, a law firm that was "reorganized to be a consulting firm." She stopped practicing law in December 2021, and the new business had not yet received any contracts. The family's 2021 amended tax return indicated that the gross receipts from her law firm were $955,269, and there was a profit of $109,918, which she attributed as earned income. She testified that, at the time of the hearing, she was not receiving any income from the firm.

Mother had also been a CEO and project manager at Phase V Consulting, an IT consulting company. Mother's W-2 from 2022 indicates that Mother made $103,749.77 from this company. Mother testified that she stepped down from her CEO position in June 2023 because the business had "incurred a lot of debt," and she was unable to "keep up with it." She "transferred the business" to her business partner, Kim Kight.^[2]

Mother initially testified that she owned three investment properties with Ms. Kight, but she did not receive any income from these properties. On cross-examination, Mother stated she owned seven investment properties. The amended financial statement Mother submitted into evidence noted ownership of four properties.

Mother's financial statement also listed her and the children's monthly expenses. These expenses included a "domestic assistance/housekeeper," who came to the home five days a week. Mother believed that Father was paying the mortgage on the marital home, and she "was told" that Father was providing the family's health insurance. She was not paying anything toward the mortgages on her investment properties. Ms. Kight was paying Mother's car note, cell phone bill, "and other expenses," and Ms. Kight had given her a $500,000 loan to "try to get J. Anukem and Associates up and running as a consulting firm" and "for living expenses." Mother had pre-paid the children's tuition expenses for the 2023-2024 school year, and she had pre-paid for a cruise scheduled for December 2023. Mother testified that she was unable to support herself or her children with her current income. On cross-examination, Mother stated that Ms. Kight and Ms. Kight's daughter were residing rent-free in the marital home, which was a 12,000 square-foot-home with seven bedrooms, eleven bathrooms, and two kitchens.

Father testified that he is a psychiatrist, and he owns his own business. Because Mother had filed several protective orders against him, one of which resulted in a brief incarceration on October 16, 2023, Father had lost "almost every single contract" with clients. He was on probation for one of his contracts, and another client with whom he had a contract had reduced his working time to two hours per week.

Father testified that he could not afford to pay for the housekeeper and nanny because, due to the events that had happened, he had lost contracts and was working reduced hours. His business paid for the mortgage on the marital home, approximately $10,500 per month, and he paid for the family's health insurance, approximately $2,400 per month. At the time of the hearing, Father owed $450,000 in student loans.

III. Magistrate's Report and Recommendations

On December 6, 2023, the magistrate issued her report and recommendations. As relevant to this appeal, she denied Mother's requests for pendente lite alimony and pendente lite child support. With respect to Mother's current income, the magistrate noted that Mother testified that she earned $550 per month from the daycare that she owned, but documents that Mother provided showed that she earned $628 biweekly and was paid at a rate below the minimum wage of $7.85 per hour. The magistrate noted that Mother "transferred the business Phase [V] Consulting to the name of her business partner that lives with her," Kimberly Kight, "at the same time she filed for divorce." The magistrate then found, as follows:

[M]other's statements regarding a complete lack of ongoing income lack[] credibility and [are] not supported by other credible evidence. Mother's testimony regarding her income and employment are contradictory and not credible. The portions of Mother's testimony and evidence that is credible does not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that she has a [pendente lite ] financial need.

With respect to Father's income, the magistrate found that:

[F]ather's statements regarding a decrease in income [are] more credible, but also lack[] substantial evidentiary support. Father states that his employment has been affected by the repeated and recent filings for protective and peace orders against him as well as a criminal complaint filed against him for which he was arrested. All of these filings are regarding the strife between the mother and father. None of the cases filed against him are proven to have been sustained against him. There is no peace or protective order against him and there is no criminal conviction against him. It is reasonable to believe that his employment has been affected by the recent significant court filings against him.

In conclusion, the magistrate found:

Prior to the initiation of the litigation between the parties, both parties earned substantial income from several business ventures each. They are each capable of earning significant income and each able to cover their own expenses during the [pendente lite] period. Neither parent has demonstrated a credible financial need for [pendente lite] alimony at this point in the litigation. The parties' recent history indicates this case as an above guidelines case regarding child support. Both parties are capable of supporting the children while they are in their custody. The parties should share in the payment of the housing for the benefit of the children but should not exchange child support under current circumstances.

There should be no, at this time, exchange of support between the parties for alimony or for child support. The parties should share in the cost of the children's housing for the benefit of the children.

The magistrate recommended that the parties be granted pendente lite joint legal, and shared physical, custody of the children; she recommended that the parties have custody at the family home on alternate weeks. The magistrate recommended that the requests for pendente lite alimony and child support be denied, and Mother and Father each pay one half of the mortgage.

IV. Exceptions to the Magistrate's Report and Recommendations

On December 15, 2023, Mother filed Exceptions to the Report and Recommendations of the Family Magistrate. Mother argued that the magistrate "erred by not making a finding as to the parties' respective incomes and the parties' expenses, and she abused her discretion in not awarding [Mother] pendente lite alimony and child support." Father filed a response in opposition.

V. Exceptions Hearing and Pendente Lite Order

On February 13, 2024, the parties appeared before the circuit court for a hearing on Mother's exceptions. The court stated that it had thoroughly reviewed the Magistrate's Report and Recommendations, and the magistrate "clearly made findings as to the credibility of both parties regarding what they said and didn't say and proof t...