Gamble v. Gamble

TERRY GAMBLE v. HOLLY GAMBLE

Nos. 1921-2021, 1194-2022

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland ^[*]

February 23, 2023

Circuit Court for Baltimore County Case Nos. C-03-FM-20-898 C-12-FM-21-955

Shaw Ripken, Meredith, Timothy E. (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ.

OPINION ^[*]

Meredith, J.

In these consolidated appeals from divorce proceedings between appellant Terry Gamble ("Father") and appellee Holly Gamble ("Mother"), we review decisions by the Circuit Court for Baltimore County regarding child custody and marital property.

Father returns to this Court after his first appeal prematurely challenged a December 2020 ruling on Mother's petition for a limited divorce (the "Limited Divorce Order"). See Gamble v. Gamble, No. 1414, Sept. Term 2020, (filed Sept. 22, 2021) ("Gamble I"); Gamble v. Gamble, Circuit Court for Baltimore County, Case No. C-03-FM-20-898. The court granted Father a limited divorce; awarded Mother sole legal and primary physical custody of their biological son C.; denied Father de facto parent status for stepchildren E. and J.; required Father to pay $591 for C.'s child support; determined ownership of real and personal property; and made a marital award of $1,500 to Father.

While Father's appeal from the Limited Divorce Order was pending, Mother moved to Pennsylvania with all three children, and Father moved to Abingdon, Harford County, Maryland. On July 12, 2021, Father filed for absolute divorce in Harford County, then requested transfer of all proceedings to that county. See Gamble v. Gamble, Circuit Court for Harford County, No. C-12-FM-21-955. The Circuit Court for Baltimore County denied Father's motion to transfer, and the Circuit Court for Harford County granted Mother's motion to dismiss the action Father had filed in that venue.

On September 22, 2021, this Court dismissed Father's First Appeal challenging the Limited Divorce Order. See Gamble I, slip op. at 11. In doing so, we provided guidance for the circuit court to consider with respect to Father's rights as a de facto parent to stepchildren E. and J., child support, and the disposition of real and personal property, before filing any final appealable order. Id. at 11-16.

In November 2021, Mother petitioned for absolute divorce in the pending Baltimore County case. In December 2021, Father filed a motion to alter or amend the Limited Divorce Order, asking the court to address the concerns identified by this Court, and Father also filed a motion to transfer the case to Harford County "on forum non conveniens grounds." When the circuit court denied those motions and ordered the case to be referred to the same judge "for a hearing on the final divorce[,]" Father unsuccessfully moved to reconsider, then noted a second appeal. See Gamble v. Gamble, No. 1921, Sept. Term 2021 (the "Second Appeal").

On June 23, 2022, after Father and Mother filed briefs, this Court stayed the Second Appeal because trial on Mother's petition for absolute divorce-which was expected to generate a final judgment superseding the Limited Divorce Order-was scheduled for August 8, 2022, in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County.

After a two-day trial, the circuit court entered a judgment of absolute divorce ("Absolute Divorce Judgment"): awarding Mother sole legal and primary physical custody of C., with Father continuing to have visitation with C. on Wednesdays and alternating weekends; declaring Father a de facto parent of E. and J. and ordering visitation coupled with reunification therapy; and requiring Father to pay monthly child support in an amount to be determined by the Office for Child Support Enforcement ("OCSE") based on the parties' updated financial information. Father timely noted this appeal from the Absolute Divorce Judgment (the "Third Appeal"), see Gamble v. Gamble, No. 1194, Sept. Term 2022, which we have consolidated with his Second Appeal challenging the Limited Divorce Order. Appellant and appellee are both selfrepresented, and have both filed informal briefs in this Court.

Father presents issues that we consolidate, reorder, and restate as follows:

1. Did the Circuit Court for Baltimore County err or abuse its discretion in declining to transfer proceedings to the Circuit Court for Harford County?

2. Did the circuit court violate Father's right to due process by denying him an "opportunity to be fairly heard" on his challenges to the Limited Divorce Order or in denying him "access to" subpoenaed documents that were not produced before trial?

3. Did the trial court err or abuse its discretion in awarding Mother sole legal and primary physical custody of C.?

4. Did the trial court err or abuse its discretion in declining to make an additional monetary award to Father?

5. Was the trial judge prejudicially biased against Father?^[1]

For the reasons explained herein, we discern neither reversible error nor abuse of discretion, and we affirm the Judgment of Absolute Divorce.

BACKGROUND

Gamble I: Proceedings Through the First Appeal We summarized the parties' family history as follows in our opinion in Gamble I:

[Mother and Father] were married on March 7, 2013. A son, C was born of the marriage. Mother left Mr. Gamble on February 15, 2020. C. was five years old at the time that his parents separated.

Three days after the separation, Mother, pro se, filed in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County, a petition for limited divorce on the grounds of constructive desertion. Mr. Gamble, on May 8, 2020, filed, pro se, a counter-claim asking the court for a limited divorce on the grounds of abandonment and to grant him use and possession of the marital home for a period "not to exceed three years after a ruling of an absolute divorce has been entered." Mr. Gamble also asked the court to declare that he is the de facto parent (within the meaning of that term as set forth in Conover v. Conover, 450 Md. 51 (2016)) of two of Mother's children from another relationship. We shall refer to those children as "E." (born December 2008) and "J." (born April 2014). Mr. Gamble also asked that he be given primary physical custody of all three of the children and that the court grant joint legal custody to each parent with tie-breaking authority to him. Lastly, Mr. Gamble asked that the court award him "appropriate child support."

Gamble I, slip op. at 1.

Prior to marrying Mother, Mr. Gamble and Angelina Wilcox were in a relationship that produced a daughter, H., born in September 2012. After H.'s birth, Ms. Wilcox had custody of the child. In the first seven years of H.'s life, her parents engaged in almost constant legal battles. Nevertheless, Mr. Gamble did have regular visitations with H. and paid Ms. Wilcox child support.

During most of their marriage, Mother and Mr. Gamble lived in a four bedroom home located on Trappe Road in Dundalk, Maryland. That house was titled in Mother's name.

Mother and the late Matthew Houff were the biological parents of a daughter, E., and a son, J. But from the time E. was approximately two and one-half years old, until February 15, 2020, when she was eleven, E. lived with Mother and Mr. Gamble continuously except for a short interlude in 2013 when Mother and Mr. Gamble separated. J. lived continuously with Mother and Mr. Gamble from the time of his birth in April of 2014 until Mother and Mr. Gamble separated. J. uses "Gamble" as his last name. E.'s surname is "Houff". Both children called Mr. Gamble "daddy" and, according to Mother's trial testimony, Mr. Gamble was a "great" step-dad to his two step-children.

J. and E.'s biological father, Matthew Houff, paid child support to Mother until he died in October of 2019 due to a pulmonary embolism.

Id. at 3-4.

Following their separation, without a written agreement or court order, Father had primary physical custody of C. while Mother had custody of E. and J.

J., E., and Mother went to live in a six bedroom house where Matt Houff's parents lived. That trio lived with the children's paternal grandparents from February 15, 2020 to December 2, 2020, the date of trial [on the petition for limited divorce].

Between February 15, 2020 and the date of trial, C. lived with Mr. Gamble. According to Mother's testimony, the custody arrangement was a matter that Mr. Gamble forced on her. Mr. Gamble did allow Mother regular visitation with C. - but from February to December 2020, there was never any court approved custody and/or visitation schedule.

Although Mother didn't ask for child support because, in her words, she "didn't need it," she introduced into evidence a financial statement showing that she currently made $3,800 per month ($45,600 per year) working as a hospice nurse. Before the COVID-19 pandemic, she worked one full-time job and two part-time jobs and earned $125,000 annually. At the time of trial, she was working only 32 hours per week. According to Mother, she cut back on her hours because previously she was working "24/7," which was exhausting. She also indicated that another reason she reduced her income was because of the COVID-19 pandemic, which caused J. and E. to be out of school.

Mr. Gamble is employed by M&M Vending as an "IT" specialist. Because of the COVID-19 pandemic, he was furloughed from his job for about two months but he was back at work, full time, on the date of trial. According to the judge's calculations, based on pay stubs the judge reviewed, he earns $4,769 per month ($57,228 per year).

Id. at 7-8.

At the conclusion of a contentious hearing on Mother's petition for limited divorce on December 2, 2020,

the trial judge delivered an oral opinion in which she denied Mother a limited divorce on the grounds of constructive desertion; granted Mr. Gamble a limited divorce on the grounds of desertion; denied Mr. Gamble's request for a

...