Flanagan v. Flanagan
181 Md. App. 492, 956 A.2d 829, 2008 Md. App. LEXIS 109 (2008)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A divorce granted on the grounds of voluntary separation requires evidence of a mutual agreement to separate with the intent to end the marriage for the entire statutory period before the filing of the complaint; however, granting a divorce on incorrect grounds may be deemed harmless error if the record contains sufficient facts to support a divorce on an alternative, properly pleaded ground.
Facts:
- Wayne Edward Flanagan and Stephanie Bonn Flanagan were married on November 23, 1984.
- Beginning in 2002, Stephanie discovered Wayne was using the internet to visit pornographic websites and seek sexual encounters with other women.
- In December 2002, Stephanie confronted Wayne about an arranged sexual encounter, which he had previously denied, in the presence of the other woman involved.
- Stephanie also alleged that Wayne engaged in heavy, daily drinking which led to frequent verbal altercations where he was accusatory and confrontational.
- On February 2, 2005, Stephanie moved out of the marital home, leaving Wayne a letter stating his drinking and internet activities were the reasons for her departure.
- Following the separation, Wayne remained in the marital home and continued to pay the mortgage and home equity loan, while Stephanie rented a separate apartment.
Procedural Posture:
- On April 11, 2006, Stephanie Flanagan (appellee) filed a Complaint for Absolute Divorce against Wayne Flanagan (appellant) in the Circuit Court for Talbot County (trial court), alleging constructive desertion.
- On May 17, 2006, Wayne Flanagan filed a Counter-Complaint for Absolute Divorce, alleging actual desertion.
- Following a trial, the circuit court issued a Memorandum Opinion on February 27, 2007, finding grounds for divorce based on mutual and voluntary separation.
- On March 15, 2007, the trial court issued a Divorce Order granting an absolute divorce, a $30,000 monetary award to Stephanie, an award of contribution to Wayne, an order to sell the marital home, and attorney's fees to Stephanie.
- Wayne Flanagan filed a Motion to Revise or Amend the Judgment, which the trial court denied without a hearing.
- Wayne Flanagan, as appellant, noted an appeal to the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, with Stephanie Flanagan as the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the court err in granting a divorce based on the ground of mutual and voluntary separation when the evidence showed a unilateral departure by one spouse rather than a mutual agreement to separate for the entire statutory period?
Opinions:
Majority - Hollander, J.
Yes. A divorce for voluntary separation requires a mutual agreement between the parties to separate with the intent to end the marriage, which must exist for the entire 12-month statutory period before the divorce complaint is filed. Here, the evidence showed that Stephanie's departure was a unilateral decision, not a mutual one. Wayne's subsequent acquiescence and filing of a counter-complaint for desertion did not retroactively create a mutual agreement for the required duration. However, the court found this error to be harmless. Because both parties sought a divorce and the record contained sufficient evidence to grant the divorce on the alternative ground of constructive desertion (based on Wayne's conduct), the ultimate judgment of divorce was affirmed. The court vacated the monetary and attorney's fee awards, finding the trial court abused its discretion by awarding Stephanie a grossly disproportionate share (nearly 90%) of the marital property without an adequate explanation and by failing to properly calculate contribution credits.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the stringent requirements for proving a 'mutual and voluntary separation' as a ground for divorce in Maryland, emphasizing that the mutuality of intent to end the marriage must exist for the full statutory period. It also serves as a key example of the harmless error doctrine in family law, demonstrating that an appellate court can affirm a divorce decree despite incorrect legal reasoning if an alternative, correct basis exists in the record. The decision strongly reinforces the principle that trial courts must provide a clear and reasoned explanation for monetary awards, especially those resulting in a highly unequal distribution of marital property, to avoid being overturned for abuse of discretion.
