Divorce Maryland Real Property State Attorneys Prince George County
Divorce Maryland Real Property State Attorneys Prince George County
Craig v. Craig
Facts:
Appellant former wife sought review of a decree of the Circuit Court of Prince George County (Maryland), which ordered sale in lieu of partition of the real property that she had owned as tenant by the entireties with her deceased former husband. She contended that the decree of divorce obtained by the decedent in another state should not be recognized and that it could have no effect on the devolution of Maryland real property.
Divorce Maryland Real Property State Attorneys
Issue:
- Whether other state’s decree was entitled to full faith and credit?
Discussions:
The decedent left the former wife more than 30 years before his death. The former wife continued to live in the marital residence. The former husband moved to another state, obtained a divorce there and remarried. His new wife and her daughter brought this action, claiming that the tenancy by the entireties was dissolved by the other state’s divorce decree and that they were owners, along with the former wife’s daughter, of one-half of the property. Service of process upon the former wife in the other state’s divorce action had been obtained by publication and by mailing a copy to her. An affidavit of mailing appeared in the file. Although the former wife claimed never to have received service, she knew of the divorce for at least nine years prior to decedent’s death. The court held that the other state’s decree was entitled to full faith and credit. The effect was to sever the tenancy by the entireties and create a tenancy in common. This was not a result of the decree acting directly upon the property but by changing the former wife’s status. Under Maryland law, parties who were not married could not hold as tenants by the entireties.
The SRIS Law Group Maryland lawyers will do their best to help you with your case. Contact a Maryland lawyer from our firm to discuss your case. A Maryland lawyer from our firm will talk with you about your case in Maryland and advise you about your options. You can count on a lawyer from our firm to try their best to help you obtain the best result possible based on the facts of your case.
We have client meeting locations in Rockville (Montgomery County) & Baltimore.
Article written by A Sris
Disclaimer:
These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content.
Theft Maryland Felony Robbery Sentence Lawyers Baltimore County
Theft Maryland Felony Robbery Sentence Lawyers Baltimore County
HARRISON V. STATE
Facts:
Defendant petitioned for a writ of certiorari to review the judgment of the Court of Special Appeals (Maryland), which affirmed the 12 year sentence imposed upon defendant by the trial court after defendant was convicted him of felony theft of $ 300 or greater, in violation of Md. Ann. Code art. 27, § 342 (1992).
Theft Maryland Felony Robbery Sentence Lawyers
Issue:
- Whether the maximum penalty for felony theft must be reduced to 10 years because the jury that convicted Defendant of felony theft also acquitted him of robbery with a deadly weapon and simple robbery of the same property, and the maximum penalty for simple robbery under Md. Code (1957, 1992 Repl. Vol.), Art. 27, § 486 is 10 years?
Discussion:
Though the maximum sentence for felony theft was 15 years, defendant argued that since the jury acquitted him of simple robbery, which carried a maximum sentence of 10 years, the doctrine of merger prohibited the trial court from sentencing him to more than 10 year. The court recognized that some cases required a merger of offenses, while others required a merger of penalties. It noted that Maryland law employed two standards for merger. One, the required evidence test, involved comparing the elements of the pertinent offenses; if they were identical, merger was required. Because the offenses of simple robbery and felony theft were not identify, the court found that the essential evidence test was not applicable. The second standard, the rule of lenity, involved considering whether separate, cumulative punishments were possible if defendant had been convicted of both simple robbery and felony theft. The court concluded that separate punishments were not possible and thus the rule of lenity applied. However, under the rule of lenity, the court found that the offenses merged into the crime with the greater penalty. The court affirmed defendant’s convictions
The SRIS Law Group Maryland lawyers will do their best to help you with your case. Contact a Maryland lawyer from our firm to discuss your case. A Maryland lawyer from our firm will talk with you about your case in Maryland and advise you about your options. You can count on a lawyer from our firm to try their best to help you obtain the best result possible based on the facts of your case.
We have client meeting locations in Rockville (Montgomery County) & Baltimore.
Article written by A Sris
Disclaimer:
These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content.
Maryland Divorce Voluntary Separation Same Sex Attorneys Prince George County
Maryland Divorce Voluntary Separation Same Sex Attorneys Prince George County
JESSICA PORT v. VIRGINIA ANNE COWAN
Facts:
The parties married in California in a same-sex ceremony that was valid at the time that it was performed there. Thereafter, they agreed to separate. Appellant filed a divorce complaint in the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County Maryland, on the ground of voluntary separation, and appellee answered in a “no contest” manner. The trial court concluded that appellant met the residency requirements for divorce, had been separated voluntarily for more than one year, and had no hope or expectation of reconciliation. However, it denied relief to the parties based on its determination that the marriage was “not valid” and “contrary to the public policy of Maryland.” Appellant, a female spouse, and appellee, a female spouse, each sought review of a judgment.
Maryland Divorce Voluntary Separation Same Sex Attorneys
Issue:
- Whether the marriage of two people of the same sex who were validly married in another jurisdiction and who otherwise meet the criteria for divorce under Maryland law, is a valid marriage?
Discussion:
This Court held that, it is found that Maryland courts liberally recognized valid foreign marriages under principles of judicial comity unless they ran afoul of either exception to lex loci celebrationis. Upon review of applicable statutes, reported cases, and court rules, the court concluded that the valid same-sex foreign marriage was not within either exception, as it was not prohibited by statute or “repugnant” to the public policies of Maryland. Accordingly, it was subject to recognition and relief under Maryland divorce laws. Hence this court reversed the judgment of the trial court and remanded the matter with directions to grant a final divorce to the parties.
The SRIS Law Group Maryland lawyers will do their best to help you with your case. Contact a Maryland lawyer from our firm to discuss your case. A Maryland lawyer from our firm will talk with you about your case in Maryland and advise you about your options. You can count on a lawyer from our firm to try their best to help you obtain the best result possible based on the facts of your case.
We have client meeting locations in Rockville (Montgomery County) & Baltimore.
Article written by A Sris
Disclaimer:
These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content
Maryland Lawyers Murder Conviction Criminal Lawyers Attorneys
Even though defendant’s convictions for murder and arson both arose out of a single criminal adventure, they were separate and parallel offenses, neither being the lesser included offense of the other. Defendant was properly convicted of both.
Arson is a serious crime in Maryland.
Contact SRIS Law Group Maryland arson lawyers for help.
Our Maryland arson attorneys have the experience to defend you against an arson charge.
Family Law in Maryland Law Statutes
Family Law
Maryland divorce lawyers
Maryland Penal § 1-203. Special provisions of alimony, annulment, and divorce
(a) Injunctive power of court. — In an action for alimony, annulment, or divorce, an equity court:
(1) has all the powers of a court of equity; and
(2) may issue an injunction to protect any party to the action from physical harm or harassment.
(b) Lis pendens. — Unless the court expressly provides otherwise, the filing of an action for an annulment, a limited divorce, or an absolute divorce does not constitute lis pendens with respect to any property of a party.
(c) Oral testimony required for final decree. — In an action for alimony, annulment, or divorce, a final decree may not be entered except on oral testimony by the plaintiff in a hearing before an examiner or a master or in open court.
(d) Scope of alimony hearing and determination. — An equity court shall hear and determine a case for alimony in as full and ample a manner as a case for alimony could be heard and determined by the Ecclesiastical Courts of England.
Maryland Penal § 7-102. Limited divorce
(a) Grounds for limited divorce. — The court may decree a limited divorce on the following grounds:
(1) cruelty of treatment of the complaining party or of a minor child of the complaining party;
(2) excessively vicious conduct to the complaining party or to a minor child of the complaining party;
(3) desertion; or
(4) voluntary separation, if:
(i) the parties are living separate and apart without cohabitation; and
(ii) there is no reasonable expectation of reconciliation.
(b) Attempts at reconciliation. — As a condition precedent to granting a decree of limited divorce, the court may:
(1) require the parties to participate in good faith in the efforts to achieve reconciliation that the court prescribes; and
(2) assess the costs of any efforts to achieve reconciliation that the court prescribes.
(c) Time during which decree is effective. — The court may decree a divorce under this section for a limited time or for an indefinite time.
(d) Revocation of decree. — The court that granted a decree of limited divorce may revoke the decree at any time on the joint application of the parties.
(e) Decree of limited divorce on prayer for absolute divorce. — If an absolute divorce is prayed and the evidence is sufficient to entitle the parties to a limited divorce, but not to an absolute divorce, the court may decree a limited divorce.
Maryland Penal § 7-103. Absolute divorce
(a) Grounds for absolute divorce. — The court may decree an absolute divorce on the following grounds:
(1) adultery;
(2) desertion, if:
(i) the desertion has continued for 12 months without interruption before the filing of the application for divorce;
(ii) the desertion is deliberate and final; and
(iii) there is no reasonable expectation of reconciliation;
(3) conviction of a felony or misdemeanor in any state or in any court of the United States if before the filing of the application for divorce the defendant has:
(i) been sentenced to serve at least 3 years or an indeterminate sentence in a penal institution; and
(ii) served 12 months of the sentence;
(4) 12-month separation, when the parties have lived separate and apart without cohabitation for 12 months without interruption before the filing of the application for divorce;
(5) insanity if:
(i) the insane spouse has been confined in a mental institution, hospital, or other similar institution for at least 3 years before the filing of the application for divorce;
(ii) the court determines from the testimony of at least 2 physicians who are competent in psychiatry that the insanity is incurable and there is no hope of recovery; and
(iii) 1 of the parties has been a resident of this State for at least 2 years before the filing of the application for divorce;
(6) cruelty of treatment toward the complaining party or a minor child of the complaining party, if there is no reasonable expectation of reconciliation; or
(7) excessively vicious conduct toward the complaining party or a minor child of the complaining party, if there is no reasonable expectation of reconciliation.
(b) Recrimination. — Recrimination is not a bar to either party obtaining an absolute divorce on the grounds set forth in subsection (a)(1) through (7) of this section, but is a factor to be considered by the court in a case involving the ground of adultery.
(c) Res judicata. — Res judicata with respect to another ground under this section is not a bar to either party obtaining an absolute divorce on the ground of 12-month separation.
(d) Condonation. — Condonation is not an absolute bar to a decree of an absolute divorce on the ground of adultery, but is a factor to be considered by the court in determining whether the divorce should be decreed.
(e) Effect of limited divorce on application for absolute divorce. –
(1) A court may decree an absolute divorce even if a party has obtained a limited divorce.
(2) If a party obtained a limited divorce on the ground of desertion that at the time of the decree did not meet the requirements of subsection (a)(2) of this section, the party may obtain an absolute divorce on the ground of desertion when the desertion meets the requirements of subsection (a)(2) of this section.
Maryland Lawyer
