Barringer v. Barringer

SHAUN BARRINGER v. LYNN BARRINGER

No. 2479

COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND

September Term, 2019

May 10, 2021

Circuit Court for Talbot County

Case No. C-20-FM-19-000054

UNREPORTED

Arthur, Shaw Geter, Ripken, JJ.

Opinion by Ripken, 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.

This case is before us on appeal from the Circuit Court for Talbot County where appellant, Shaun Barringer ("S. Barringer"), challenges the December 4, 2019 Memorandum Opinion and Judgment of Absolute Divorce ("Memorandum Opinion"), the December 4, 2019 Judgment of Absolute Divorce ("Order"), and the January 8, 2020 Order to Amend the Judgment ("Amended Order"), which (1) granted Lynn Barringer ("L. Barringer")¹ an absolute divorce on the grounds of cruelty, (2) divided marital assets and granted a monetary award to L. Barringer, and (3) prescribed custody and visitation of the parties' three minor children. S. Barringer raises three issues on appeal. First, he contends the trial court erred in placing work-related restrictions on his visitation with the minor children. Second, he contends the trial court erred in its valuation and division of the parties' retirement benefits. Finally, he contends the trial court erred in granting L. Barringer a monetary award. For the reasons discussed below, we shall affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On June 21, 2014, S. Barringer and L. Barringer were married. During the marriage, the parties had three minor children together—A.B., born July 3, 2015, and twins J.B. and W.B., born January 20, 2018. The parties separated on January 1, 2019, due to an incident of domestic violence. L. Barringer filed a complaint for absolute divorce on February 15, 2019, and S. Barringer filed an answer on March 20, 2019. On May 14, 2019, a pendentelite hearing was held to address custody, access, and child support prior to trial. A trial on the merits of the complaint commenced on August 21, 2019, and continued to October 22 and 23, 2019. On December 4, 2019, by way of the Order and the Memorandum Opinion, the Circuit Court for Talbot County granted L. Barringer a judgment of absolute divorce from S. Barringer.

The circuit court considered the required best-interest-of-the-child factors to determine legal and physical custody. The court awarded the parties joint legal custody of the minor children, with final decision-making authority to L. Barringer. The court awarded sole physical custody to L. Barringer, outlining a visitation schedule for S. Barringer which read as follows:

The minor children will have overnight visitation with [S. Barringer] on Weekend nights, starting Friday at 3:30pm and will be returned on Monday morning to the children's day care provider or school, if and only if [S. Barringer] does not work a 24-hour shift on that Friday, Saturday, or Sunday.

The court explained its decision regarding custody and visitation in the Memorandum Opinion. The court made twenty-one factual findings to determine what custody award and parenting time would be in the best interests of the children.² Relevant to this appeal, the circuit court found the following under the "demands of parental employment" factor as it relates to S. Barringer:

[S. Barringer] is a paramedic [who] works for Talbot County, Maryland. [S. Barringer's] current schedule is a 24-hour shift, followed by 72 hours off from work, unless he picks up an additional shift. [S.Barringer's] schedule is pre-determined by his work and can be extrapolated from when he would typically work. [S. Barringer] can get coverage for his shifts in the event he is required for the care of the children. Previous visitation schedules have provided that all visitations would conform to [S. Barringer's] work schedule. The Court finds that [S. Barringer's] employment does not interfere with his ability to provide care to the minor children.

In regards to the parties' retirement accounts—two belonging to L. Barringer and one to S. Barringer—the circuit court ordered as follows: "this judgment shall remain open for the purpose of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO") to allocate distributions from [L. Barringer's] and [S. Barringer's] retirement accounts in accordance with the Memorandum accompanying this Judgment." In the Memorandum Opinion, the circuit court explained that the parties' retirement accounts would be equitably distributed using "if, as, and when" distribution pursuant to Md. Code Ann., Fam. Law ("FL") § 8-204 (2019 Repl. Vol.), also known as the Bangs formula. The circuit court then applied the Bangs formula to L. Barringer's retirement accounts to determine S. Barringer's marital interest. In doing so, the court used L. Barringer's account values, initially provided to it during trial in August 2019, rather than the updated account values, which were provided during trial in October 2019. Pursuant to the court's calculations, S. Barringer was found to have a marital interest in L. Barringer's two retirement accounts amounting to $16,800.00. Nevertheless, the circuit court ordered that the parties' martial interests in their respective retirement accounts were to be calculated using the Bangs formula in a future QDRO.

In accordance with FL §§ 8-202-05, the court identified the parties' marital property, valuated each item, and equitably distributed the property. In dividing the parties' marital property, the court considered a list of equitable factors in compliance with FL § 8-205(b)(1)-(11). Upon consideration of the requisite factors and the distribution of physical property, the court ordered S. Barringer to pay a "monetary award in the amount of $11,950.00 to [L. Barringer]. As [L. Barringer] is currently found to owe $3,350.00, [S. Barringer] only owes $8,600.00 to satisfy the monetary award."³

Following the circuit court's Memorandum Opinion and Order, both parties filed Motions to Alter or Amend Judgment. In their respective motions, both parties sought, among other things, clarification of the visitation schedule. According to L. Barringer, S. Barringer alleged that he was entitled to every weekend unless he was working, and implied he would change his work schedule if assigned to work on a weekend so that L. Barringer would never have the children on a weekend. However, L. Barringer interpreted the Order to mean that if S. Barringer was scheduled to work a 24-hour shift between Friday at 3:30 p.m. and Monday morning, he would not have visitation at all that weekend. Upon consideration of the motions, to provide clarification on the visitation schedule, the court issued the Amended Order as follows:

ORDERED, that parenting time between [S. Barringer] and the minor children shall occur on Weekend nights, starting Friday at 3:30pm until Monday morning when the children are returned to either school or daycare, if and only if [S. Barringer] does not work on that Friday, Saturday, or Sunday-meaning that if [S. Barringer] is to work a 24-hour shift on Friday,the minor children will remain with [L. Barringer] from Friday at 3:30pm to Monday morning; if [S. Barringer] is to work a 24-hour shift on Saturday, the minor children will remain with [L. Barringer] from Friday at 3:30pm to Monday morning; and if [S. Barringer] is to work a 24-hour schedule on Sunday, the minor children will remain with [L. Barringer] from Friday at 3:30pm to Monday morning; and it is further

ORDERED, that any manipulation of [S. Barringer's] work schedule for the intended purpose of circumventing any order of this Court to increase parenting time with [S. Barringer] need not be accommodated by [L. Barringer] . . . .

The circuit court denied all remaining claims in L. Barringer's motion and denied S. Barringer's motion. Following the court's Amended Order, S. Barringer filed this timely appeal. Additional facts will be provided as needed.

ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW

On appeal, S. Barringer presents the following issues for our review:

1. Did the trial court abuse its discretion in placing work-related restrictions upon the children's visitation with S. Barringer?⁴

2. Did the trial court err with regard to the valuation and division of the parties' retirement benefits?

3. Did the trial court err in granting [L. Barringer] a monetary award?

For the reasons discussed below, our conclusion as to each issue is as follows. First, we shall vacate the visitation order and remand with instructions to clarify in accordance with this opinion. Second, we note the court's decision to use the Bangs formula to distribute the parties' retirement accounts is correct, but we shall vacate the order regarding the distributions from the parties' retirement accounts with instructions to clarify thedistribution as to the valuation of S. Barringer's interest in L. Barringer's retirement accounts in accordance with this opinion. Last, we shall affirm the trial court's grant of a monetary award to L. Barringer.

DISCUSSION

I. The Trial Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion in Tailoring S. Barringer's Visitation Rights to His Work Schedule

S. Barringer first contends that the trial court abused its discretion in placing a work-related restriction on his visitation with the minor children. He asserts the restriction does not rest upon any findings related to his work schedule and has no relationship to any announced objective; therefore the restriction is unfair and unjust. In response, L. Barringer argues that the trial court was in the best position to evaluate the best interests of the minor children in determining custody and visitation and that evidence presented at trial supported the restriction. Aside from the validity of the work restriction, during oral argument both parties voiced confusion as to the...