Barker v. Bland

KRISTIN BARKER v. STEVEN BLAND

No. 489

COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND

September Term, 2020

July 19, 2021

Circuit Court for Carroll County

Case No. 06-C-11-059416

UNREPORTED

Nazarian, Wells, Raker, Irma S. (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ.

Opinion by Wells, J.

*This is an unreported opinion, and it may not be cited in any paper, brief, motion, or other document filed in this Court or any other Maryland Court as either precedent within the rule of stare decisis or as persuasive authority. Md. Rule 1-104.

Kristin Barker (now Kristin Estes) ["Mother"] and Steven Bland ["Father"] are the parents of a minor child, who was born in 2007.¹ In 2011, Mother filed a petition in the Circuit Court for Carroll County, seeking an order regarding custody and support. Issues of custody, support, and visitation became final on July 20, 2011, pursuant to a consent order.

In 2019, Mother filed a petition with the court, seeking to modify child support and requesting other relief. The court issued an order, that was not signed by Mother, that incorporated the terms of a settlement agreement that the parties entered on the record. In a separate order, the court granted Father's request for attorney's fees.

Mother filed a motion to alter or amend both orders, which the court denied. This appeal followed, in which Mother presents three questions for our review:

1. Did the trial court err in concluding that [Mother] waived the right to challenge the court's entry of the child support and attorney's fees orders because she had not filed exceptions to the Magistrate's report and recommendations?

2. Was it an error for the trial court to order child support based on an agreement between parents, without applying child support guidelines or explaining how the deviation from the guidelines was in the child's best interest?

3. Did the court abuse its discretion when it awarded attorney's fees to [Father] based on [Mother's] efforts to get a judicial determination whether the agreement was in the best interest of the child, and without considering the financial status and needs of the parties?

Because Mother consented to the order modifying child support, she is not entitled to an appeal from that order. Accordingly, we shall dismiss that appeal. We find no error or abuse of discretion in the order for attorney's fees or in the order denying the motion to vacate that order, and they shall be affirmed.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The parties' child, "R.", was born in 2007. In 2011, Mother petitioned the court for an order regarding custody and child support. On July 20, 2011, a consent order, signed by both parties, was entered, which provided that the parties would have joint legal custody of R., Mother would have primary physical custody, Father would have reasonable visitation, and Father would pay Mother $125 per week in child support. In 2012, a consent order was entered, which increased Father's child support payments to $564 per month.

In 2014, Father filed a motion to modify child support on grounds that he had become unemployed. Following a hearing before a magistrate, the court issued an order reducing Father's child support obligation to $239 a month, which was based on imputed income equal to the federal minimum wage.

In July 2019, Mother filed a petition to modify child support. In support of her petition, Mother asserted that, since the 2014 modification order, Father had earned an associate degree but had made no effort to find employment. Mother requested that the income to be imputed to Father be increased to $17-20 an hour. Mother further requested that the schedule for claiming R. as a dependent for tax purposes be modified in her favor, and that Father be ordered to pay his share of R.'s extraordinary medical expenses.

The parties and their respective counsel appeared for a hearing before a magistrate on November 21, 2019. When the case was called, the parties were engaged in settlement negotiations. The case was passed to allow the parties to continue discussions. Approximately 45 minutes later, the case was recalled, and counsel represented that the parties had reached an agreement.

Father's attorney put the terms of the agreement on the record, stating the parties agreed that Father's child support obligation be increased to $315 per month. In addition, the parties agreed that Father would make a one-time payment of $300 to Mother, representing his share of the extraordinary medical expenses, and that Father would forgo claiming R. as a dependent for the 2019 tax year.

The parties were then sworn and asked about their consent to the terms. Mother affirmed that she discussed the agreement fully with her attorney and was satisfied with his advice, she voluntarily and freely agreed with the terms of the agreement as stated on the record, the agreement resolved all of the issues in her motion to modify, and she believed the agreement to be in the best interest of R. Father made similar affirmations.

The magistrate found that the parties had entered into the agreement knowingly and voluntarily. Mother's attorney agreed to prepare a consent order to submit to the court for approval. Meanwhile, a temporary order was issued that incorporated the terms of the parties' agreement. The parties were ordered to appear at a status review hearing on December 20, 2019 in the event that the proposed consent order was not received by the court by that date.

The consent order was not submitted to the court prior to December 20, 2019, and the review hearing went forward. Both parties appeared with counsel. Counsel for Mother explained that he prepared a consent order that incorporated the terms of the parties' agreement, but that, "on [Mother's] further reflection on the matter she feels that in all good conscience that she cannot agree to the child support provision . . . because the [c]ourt hasn't had the opportunity to examine it[.]" Counsel stated that Mother now felt the agreement was not in the best interest of the child, and that she had a "very solid argument" that "the child deserves more than . . . she is currently getting[,]" but counsel did not explain the basis of the argument. Counsel requested the court to reset the hearing on Mother's motion for modification of child support.

Father's attorney argued that Mother was bound by the consent agreement and requested that the court sign the consent order, which was submitted to the magistrate along with "guidelines."² In addition, Father requested that Mother be ordered to compensate him for attorney's fees in the amount of $825, representing three hours of his attorney's time to travel to and appear at the status hearing, which he would not have incurred if Mother had signed the consent order that incorporated terms she already agreed to.

The magistrate stated that he would review the agreement on the record and, if the consent order was consistent with the terms placed on the record, he would recommend that the court sign the order. The issue of attorney's fees was held sub curia.

On December 23, 2019, the magistrate issued a report and recommendations. The magistrate found that the parties, who were both represented by counsel, had knowingly and voluntarily had come to an agreement which they acknowledged on the record. The magistrate found that the parties' proposed order substantially conformed to the terms of the agreement placed on the record and recommended that the court sign the order.

The magistrate also recommended that the court grant Father's request for attorney's fees, finding that the agreement was binding on the parties once it was placed on the record. Mother's subsequent "misgivings" about the agreement were not a valid basis for her refusal to sign the consent order. The magistrate concluded that Mother's "unwillingness to cooperate" with entry of the proposed consent order was unjustified.

Mother did not file exceptions to the magistrate's recommendations. The court accepted those recommendations and, on January 10, 2020, entered the consent order. On the same date, in a separate order, the court ordered Mother to pay Father's attorney's fees.

On January 21, 2020, Mother filed a "Request to Modify or Set Aside Judgments." Mother asserted that she "believed she had mistakenly agreed to a support amount well below the Maryland child support guidelines, effectively waiving support to which the minor child is entitled." In a footnote, Mother represented that her monthly income and R.'s health insurance costs were inconsistent with the figures that appear in the child support worksheet submitted with the proposed consent order. Mother further representedthat, after the agreement was put on the record, there had been an increase in the federal minimum wage, and the income to be imputed to Father should be increased accordingly. Mother claimed that, if the revised income and expense information were applied, Father's child support obligation would be greater than the amount she had agreed to.

Mother requested that the court vacate the January 10, 2020 order and schedule a hearing on modification of child support. Mother also requested that the court set aside the attorney's fees award, arguing that the court erred in focusing on the validity of the agreement reached by the parties instead of the best interest of the child, and the court failed to consider the statutory factors for an award of costs.

The court held a telephonic hearing on Mother's motion to modify or set aside judgments on June 19, 2020.³ Counsel for Mother explained that, after the settlement agreement was placed on the record, she "realized maybe she had made a mistake and maybe the agreement was not in the child's best interest." Counsel conceded that the child support worksheet in the court's file reflected the child support obligation that the parties agreed to, but the information regarding Mother's income and R.'s health insurance costs was incorrect. Counsel argued that the court...