Samuels v. Rimerman

DAVID A. SAMUELS v. LINDA O. RIMERMAN f/k/a LINDA O. SAMUELS

No. 1690

COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND

September Term, 2013

October 30, 2015

UNREPORTED

Berger, Nazarian, Leahy, JJ.

Opinion by Leahy, 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.

As is unfortunately all too common, the parties have bitterly disputed the specifics of their divorce, post-settlement. By the start of the circumstances relevant to the instant appeal, the circuit court docket had amassed 762 entries, a truly astounding number. That number swelled to 1251 entries by the time the record extract was submitted to this Court.

We review David A. Samuels's (Appellant) appeal from four separate orders of the Circuit Court for Montgomery County,¹ following the twelve he has appealed so far in the course of family law proceedings between him and his former wife, Linda O. Rimerman (Appellant).² The first appeal noted on October 21, 2013, was from an order entered on September 25, 2013 denying Mr. Samuels's motion for reconsideration of the court's order dated May 29, 2013 directing that Mr. Samuels pay $8,412.50 in attorney's fees to Ms. Rimerman for costs incurred preparing for two hearings addressing, inter alia, visitation issues. The second appeal was also noted on October 21, 2013 from another order dated September 25, 2013 denying reconsideration of the circuit court's decision onMay 10, 2013 to set aside, as a fraudulent conveyance, a property transfer made by Mr. Samuels.

The third notice of appeal was filed on November 25, 2013. It concerns a hearing that was held on October 10, 2013, in which the court addressed Ms. Rimerman's request for appellate attorney's fees and Mr. Samuels's petition to modify child support. On October 31, 2013, the court ordered Mr. Samuels to pay $84,627.83 for Ms. Rimerman's attorney's fees and modified Mr. Samuels's child support obligation to $3,000 per month.

Finally, on December 18, 2013, the court ordered Mr. Samuels to pay $16,016.20 to Ms. Rimerman for costs and fees she incurred from preparing for and participating in the October 10, 2013, hearing. Mr. Samuels filed the fourth and final notice of appeal proceeding under this case number (No. 1690, September Term, 2013) on January 8, 2014.³

Mr. Samuels presents five questions for our review, which we have reordered and then slightly rephrased:

I. Did the trial court abuse its discretion by ordering Mr. Samuels to pay Ms. Rimerman $8,412.50 in attorney's fees for the hearings on January 24, 2013 and February 8, 2013, addressing visitation with their daughter?

II. Did the trial court commit error by characterizing as a fraudulent conveyance Mr. Samuels's transfer of his interest in an investment property from his name to a legal entity, which he controls; and did the court abuse its discretion by ordering that the fraudulent conveyance be set aside?

III. Did the court abuse its discretion in ordering Mr. Samuels to pay Ms. Rimerman $84,627.83 in attorney's fees and expert witness fees she incurred for various appellate court matters from 2011 through the present?

IV. Did the trial court abuse its discretion by establishing a new child support order in the amount of $3,000 per month?

V. Did the trial court abuse its discretion by ordering Mr. Samuels to pay Ms. Rimerman $16,016.20 in attorney's fees for the costs associated with the hearing on October 10, 2013?

We hold that the circuit court's factual determinations were not clearly erroneous and that the court did not abuse its discretion in ordering Mr. Samuels to pay Ms. Rimerman's attorney's fees in the various proceedings. We conclude the court did not err in its determination that Mr. Samuels's property transfer was a fraudulent conveyance and did not abuse its discretion in setting aside the conveyance. Finally, we hold that the circuit court did not err and did not abuse its discretion in calculating child support. We therefore affirm the judgments of the circuit court.

I. Attorney's Fees for the January 24, 2013, and February 8, 2013, hearings

A. Factual and Procedural Background

The circumstances surrounding the court's May 29, 2013, award of attorney's fees to Ms. Rimerman relate to proceedings in the fall of 2012 and winter of 2013. We described these circumstances as well as the history of the parties' litigation in our unreported opinion, Samuels v. Rimerman, No. 2528, Sept. Term, 2012 (January 13, 2014) (footnote omitted), cert. denied, 437 Md. 637 (2014):

On February 26, 2007, Mr. Samuels and Ms. Rimerman entered into a separation and custody agreement, which was incorporated into a judgment of absolute divorce on April 10, 2007. Pursuant to the terms of the agreement, the parties had joint legal custody of the couple's three minor children, but Ms. Rimerman had primary physical custody.[⁵] Since that date, the parties have litigated extensively, and this is not the first oftheir disputes to reach us. See Samuels v. Samuels, No. 2272, Sept. Term 2011 (Mar. 14, 2013); Samuels v. Samuels, No. 1615, Sept. Term 2011 (Oct. 5, 2012); Samuels v. Samuels, No. 0090, Sept. Term 2011 (Oct. 5, 2012).

* * *

[On] February 15, 2011, [Ms. Rimerman filed a] petition to modify custody, wherein she sought sole legal custody of Daughter. On March 11, 2011, Mr. Samuels responded with a motion to change custody and a motion to compel a mental examination of Ms. Rimerman. Following a July 13, 2011, hearing, on August 1, 2011, the court entered an order that, inter alia, deferred ruling on the cross-petitions for a modification of legal custody and appointed John Lefkowits, Ph.D., as a reunification therapist between Daughter and Mr. Samuels.

On August 18, 2011, the court held a status hearing, and the parties reported progress with Dr. Lefkowits's reunification therapy. Accordingly, on August 30, the court entered an order to continue the reunification therapy and reserved ruling on the change of custody. On October 18, 2011, however, the court entered an order granting sole legal custody of Daughter to Ms. Rimerman.

In late October 2011, after consultation with Daughter's therapist, Karen McClelland, LCSW, Dr. Lefkowits recommended additional reunification therapy sessions. Mr. Samuels wanted Dr. Lefkowits to terminate the therapy. At a December 7, 2011, status hearing, Dr. Lefkowits testified that, after hearing the recommendation for additional sessions, Mr. Samuels became angry with him and threatened to take him to court and spend $30,000 per year on legal fees. Dr. Lefkowits stated that Mr. Samuels also attempted to intimidate him by threatening to subpoena him. On November 7, 2011, Dr. Lefkowits sent a letter to the court, informing the court of his resignation from the case. Dr. Lefkowits wrote that he thought continued therapy was advisable because Daughter had been upset by Mr. Samuels's actions.

In the letter, Dr. Lefkowits described an incident that occurred at a reunification therapy session as related to him by Daughter: after Dr. Lefkowits left to speak to Ms. Rimerman, Mr. Samuels forced Daughter to call Mr. Samuels's mother, and this person made some negative remarks about Ms. Rimerman. Daughter also stated that she was upset because Mr. Samuels would not let her end the call. Dr. Lefkowits informed the court that this incident had upset Daughter to the point of tears. Dr. Lefkowits informed the court that, in his "nearly twenty years" of "work[ing] with numerous high conflict couples," he had never encountered threatening andintimidating behavior like that exhibited by Mr. Samuels. In closing, Dr. Lefkowits recommended against further reconciliation therapy and suggested the court appoint a parent coordinator.

Following Dr. Lefkowits's resignation, Mr. Samuels filed a Motion for Court Ordered Visitation Schedule for Weekly Visitation with His Two Minor Children as Well as Unimpeded Electronic and Telephonic Access. Ms. Rimerman filed a motion for the appointment of a parent coordinator and also opposed Mr. Samuels's motion. Ms. Rimerman wanted the court to appoint a parent coordinator, in part, because Mr. Samuels went to Daughter's school, unannounced, on November 6, 2011. At the December 7 hearing, Dr. Lefkowits testified that Daughter feared Mr. Samuels was going to kidnap her, and she borrowed her teacher's cell phone to call Ms. Rimerman.

On December 7, 2011, the court conducted a hearing on pending motions. Dr. Lefkowits recommended that Mr. Samuels attend anger management therapy. After Dr. Lefkowits made this statement, Mr. Samuels made a rude gesture toward Dr. Lefkowits: "Mr. Samuels just flipped me the bird. In open Court. He just gave me the finger, to be colloquial about it." Ms. McClelland also testified that Daughter no longer felt comfortable on visits with Mr. Samuels, and she, too, recommended the appointment of a parent coordinator.

On December 13, the court entered an order denying both Mr. Samuels's and Ms. Rimerman's motions. Additionally, the court ordered Mr. Samuels to participate in individual counseling for anger management and parenting skills. Further, the court ordered that Mr. Samuels could have visitation with Daughter every other weekend, and these visits would be supervised by James Fenner or Frank Banner. . . .

* * *

At the May 24 status hearing, the court heard testimony from the parties, Ms. Tillery, Ms. McClelland, Daughter, and Dara Goldberg, LCSW. Ms. Tillery testified that Mr. Samuels was attending therapy, but he had selected Ms. Goldberg instead of one of the court ordered therapists. The court afforded no weight to Ms. Goldberg's testimony, however, because the court found that Mr. Samuels had provided an incomplete history to her. Ms. Tillery stated that Mr. Samuels was hostile toward her and had accused her of surveilling him.

Daughter testified that she felt

...