Ricketts v. Ricketts
393 Md. 479, 903 A.2d 857 (2006)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A complaint for a limited divorce on the grounds of constructive desertion, and a related complaint for child custody, may be maintained even when the spouses continue to reside in the same home, provided they have ceased cohabitation and are not living as husband and wife.
Facts:
- Robert M. Ricketts, Jr. and Mary C. Ricketts were married in 1981 and had three children.
- At an unspecified time, Mrs. Ricketts allegedly forced Mr. Ricketts out of the marital bedroom.
- Following this event, the parties ceased all marital relations.
- Despite the termination of their marital relationship, Mr. and Mrs. Ricketts continued to reside in the same house with their children, occupying separate bedrooms.
Procedural Posture:
- Robert M. Ricketts, Jr. filed a complaint in the Circuit Court for Carroll County (trial court) seeking a limited divorce and custody of his minor children.
- Mary C. Ricketts filed a Motion to Dismiss, arguing that the complaint was legally insufficient because the parties continued to live under the same roof.
- The Circuit Court granted the Motion to Dismiss without providing an explanation.
- Mr. Ricketts, as appellant, noted a timely appeal to the Court of Special Appeals (intermediate appellate court).
- Prior to any proceedings in the intermediate appellate court, the Court of Appeals of Maryland (the state's highest court) issued a writ of certiorari on its own initiative to hear the case.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
May a spouse maintain a complaint for a limited divorce alleging constructive desertion based on the cessation of marital relations, and a complaint for child custody, when both parties continue to live under the same roof?
Opinions:
Majority - Bell, C.J.
Yes, a spouse may maintain a complaint for limited divorce and child custody even when the parties reside under the same roof. The court held that 'desertion' in the context of divorce law signifies the cessation of the marital relationship, not merely ceasing to live in separate physical residences. Precedent establishes that a permanent, unjustified refusal of sexual intercourse constitutes desertion, which can serve as grounds for a limited divorce. Because a valid claim for divorce can exist while parties live in the same house, it would be illogical to prevent the court from also adjudicating the related and critical issues of child custody and support. The court's jurisdiction over child custody is paramount to protect the best interests of the children and is not defeated by the parents' shared living arrangement, despite statutory language that seems to suggest parents must 'live apart.'
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms and clarifies that the legal concept of marital separation or desertion is based on the functional breakdown of the marital relationship, not strictly on the physical separation of the parties' residences. It provides a crucial avenue for relief for spouses who may be unable to physically separate for financial, practical, or child-related reasons. The ruling prevents the use of a shared living arrangement as a procedural shield to dismiss otherwise valid claims for divorce and custody, ensuring courts can address the substantive issues of a failed marriage and the best interests of any children involved.
Unlock the full brief for Ricketts v. Ricketts