Sidler v. Allor

1

JAMES SIDLER v. ANNE KATHRYN ALLOR

No. 0987-2022

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

June 6, 2024

UNREPORTED IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF MARYLAND ^[*]

Circuit Court for Saint Mary's County Case No C-18-FM-18-000947

Graeff, Reed, Taylor, Robert K. (Specially Assigned) JJ.

OPINION

Reed J. On November 12, 2018, an action was initiated when Appellee, Anne Kathryn Allor ("Wife") filed a Complaint for Absolute Divorce, or in the alternative, Limited Divorce against Appellant, James Sidler ("Husband"). The parties appeared before the trial court on April 28, 2022, for a divorce hearing. After lengthy discussions, the parties reached a partial agreement and narrowed the issues for the trial court to decide. On May 26, 2022, the trial court entered a Judgment of Absolute Divorce, from which Husband files this timely appeal.

In bringing his appeal, Husband presents four questions for appellate review, which we reorder and restate as follows:

I. Did the trial court err by concluding that Husband's FERS retirement benefits were not part of the parties' partial agreement?

II. Did the trial court err by awarding rehabilitative alimony to Wife?

III. Did the trial court err by modifying custody in the Judgment of Absolute Divorce?^[1]

For the reasons outlined infra, we affirm the decision of the trial court.

Factual &Procedural Background

The parties in this divorce action were married on April 25, 2009, and one child was born to the marriage. On November 12, 2018, Wife filed a Complaint for Absolute Divorce, or in the alternative, Limited Divorce, Custody, Child Support, Alimony and for further relief. On August 22, 2019, the parties appeared before a Magistrate and agreed to a custodial arrangement concerning their minor child, memorialized into a Consent Order, dated November 21, 2019. Pursuant to their agreement, the parties shared joint legal custody and primary physical custody was granted to Wife. Additionally, Husband was ordered to "submit to an alcohol assessment". The trial court also ordered "that neither party shall consume or be under the influence of alcohol in the presence of the minor child."

On October 21, 2020, Wife filed a Motion to Modify Custody and also filed an Amended Complaint for Absolute Divorce, Custody, Child Support, Alimony and for further relief. On April 6, 2021, the parties convened for a hearing on Wife's Motion to Modify Custody and Wife's Petition for Contempt. After not concluding the hearing on that date, the hearing was scheduled to continue on May 12, 2021. However, due to Husband's counsel's trial schedule, the hearing was continued until July 26, 2021. On that day, the hearing proceeded but was continued to August 16, 2021, after the hearing was not concluded. Following the conclusion of the hearing, in an Order dated August 23, 2021, the trial court ordered that Wife continue to have primary physical custody of the minor child and ordered that the parties share joint legal custody with tie breaking authority to Wife.

On April 8, 2021, Wife filed her Second Amended Complaint for Absolute Divorce, Custody, Child Support, Alimony and for further relief. Husband filed his Answer on December 15, 2021. The parties appeared on December 16, 2021, for a hearing on the merits of Wife's Complaint for Absolute Divorce. However, the hearing was continued due to the illness of one party.

The parties reappeared for trial on the merits on April 28 and 29, 2022. At that time, the parties began negotiations to see if they could settle the case in full or in part. The parties entered into a partial agreement that narrowed the contested issues in the case. The terms of the partial agreement provided that the parties agreed that the custodial arrangement would continue pursuant to the previous Orders of Court. Furthermore, the agreement provided that Husband would purchase Wife's interest in the marital home and pay her a total sum of $56,000.00 via $41,000 in cash and $15,000 from Husband's civilian thrift savings plan (TSP) within six months. Husband agreed to pay Wife's attorney's fees totaling $5,000 by monthly payments of $100.00, beginning on June 1, 2022. The parties also agreed that Wife would receive one half of Husband's larger civilian thrift savings plan (TSP) account.^[2] The partial agreement further provided that Wife would receive a one-half marital share of Husband's military pension on an if, as, and when basis. Following the terms of the agreement, the trial court inquired as to whether custody was fully resolved in the case. Counsel for Wife informed the court that custody was agreed to but not support, extraordinary medical expenses, and daycare expenses. Counsel for Husband expressly agreed that the agreement, as placed on the record was accurate. "THE COURT: Mr. Brown is that your client's agreement as what's read into the record by Ms. Jacobson? MR. BROWN: Yes, Your Honor."). The parties proceeded with a contested hearing on the remaining issues of the marriage, namely alimony, child support, extraordinary medical expenses, and daycare expenses.

During the contested hearing, Husband took the stand to testify. Counsel for Wife asked him if his only retirement benefits were the military pension and thrift savings plans already resolved by agreement, to which he responded in the affirmative. Shortly thereafter, Counsel for Wife inquired whether Husband had any retirement assets under FERS (Federal Employees Retirement System). Husband conceded that he was entitled to civil service retirement funds under FERS. Ultimately, Husband argued before the trial court that Wife waived her interest in his FERS benefits as a term within their partial agreement. ("Mr. Sidler takes the position that FERS was part of the settlement agreement that was -specifically said military pension.") Wife countered by arguing that any interest in FERS was not waived and Husband failed to identify these assets within the discovery process. After listening to argument by all sides, the trial court ruled that FERS was properly pled in the Wife's Second Amended Complaint and further concluded that the Wife did not waive her interest in the FERS benefits.

Husband argued in his closing argument that Wife was not entitled to receive rehabilitative alimony because she did not plead it. In her closing, Wife argued that the Second Amended Complaint included a request for alimony in the prayer for relief and it was within the power of the trial court to award it. The trial court ruled that Wife was entitled to rehabilitative alimony in the amount of $1,000 per month for a term of thirty-six (36) months. The trial court also granted Wife fifty percent (50%) of the marital share of Husband's FERS on an if, as and when basis. The trial court signed the Judgment of Absolute Divorce on May 26, 2022, that memorialized the terms of the agreement and included the court's rulings. Following the Judgment, on June 6, 2022, Husband filed a Motion to Reconsider and Amend Order and Request for Hearing. The trial court denied Husband's Motion to Reconsider on August 8, 2022. On August 22, 2022, Husband timely filed this appeal to the Judgment of Absolute Divorce.

Standard of Review

As outlined by Md. Rule 8-131, "When an action has been tried without a jury, the appellate court will review the case on both the law and the evidence. It will not set aside the judgment of the trial court on the evidence unless clearly erroneous, and will give due regard to the opportunity of the trial court to judge the credibility of the witnesses." Md. Rule 8-131(c); see also Gen. Motors Corp. v. Schmitz, 362 Md. 229, 233 (2001); Spector v. State, 289 Md. 407, 433 (1981). The Supreme Court of Maryland has held that "[t]he appellate court must consider evidence produced at the trial in a light most favorable to the prevailing party and if substantial evidence was presented to support the trial court's determination, it is not clearly erroneous and cannot be disturbed." Gen. Motors Corp., 362 Md. at 233-234 (quoting Ryan v. Thurston, 276 Md. 360, 390 (1975)). However, when the trial court's ruling "involves an interpretation and application of Maryland statutory and case law," appellate courts are required to "determine whether the lower court's conclusions are legally correct, under a de novo standard of review." Nesbit v. Gov't Employees Ins. Co., 382 Md. 65, 73 (2004).

Discussion

I. FERS Retirement Benefits

A. Parties' Contentions

Husband argues that the parties entered into a binding agreement on April 28, 2022. Husband further argues that once the parties reached a binding partial separation agreement then the trial court did not have the authority to modify it. Husband contends that contrary to the trial court's ruling, Wife was aware of Husband's FERS benefits. Specifically, Husband asserts "[a]t all times during the (over four (4) hour) negotiation occurring on April 28, 2022, [Wife] knew or should have known about the FERS retirement, because it was disclosed four (4) months prior in the draft settlement agreement and a week before trial on the updated pay stub provided." Husband asks that we vacate the award of Wife's interest in the FERS civilian retirement benefits.

Wife responds that the trial court properly concluded that Husband's FERS benefits were not part of the parties' partial agreement. She contends that Husband failed to disclose these benefits during the discovery process despite specific interrogatories aimed at ascertaining any and all retirement benefits. Wife argues in the alternative that Husband committed fraud by failing to disclose a material fact. Wife does not seek to set aside the agreement but rather asks the Court to affirm the trial court findings that the partial agreement did not include...