Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Goldberg v. Miller 371 Md. 591, 810 a.2d 947

Goldberg v. Miller 371 Md. 591, 810 a.2d 947

Ratings: (0)|Views: 1|Likes:
Published by Thalia Sanders
371 Md. 591, 810 A.2d 947
371 Md. 591, 810 A.2d 947

More info:

Published by: Thalia Sanders on Apr 09, 2014
Copyright:Traditional Copyright: All rights reserved


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





Westlaw Delivery Summary Report for PATRON ACCESS,-
Date/Time of Request: Tuesday, August 24, 2010 13:30 EasternClient Identifier: PATRON ACCESSDatabase: MD-CSCitation Text: 810 A.2d 947Lines: 790Documents: 1Images: 0
business law 2 sta-rite legal history how to cite a case
The material accompanying this summary is subject to copyright. Usage is governed by contract with Thomson Reuters,West and their affiliates.
Court of Appeals of Maryland.David S. GOLDBERGv.Robert Martin MILLER.
No. 8, Sept. Term 2002.
Nov. 8, 2002.Guardian ad litem filed petition for allowance of counsel fees, arising from marriage dissolution ac-tion between husband and wife. The Circuit Court,Montgomery County, William P. Turner, J., granted petition. Husband appealed. The Court of SpecialAppeals, 142 Md.App. 239, 788 A.2d 717, reversed in part. On grant of guardian ad litem's petition forwrit of certiorari, the Court of Appeals, Battaglia, J., held, as a matter of first impression, that trialcourt did not possess authority to treat guardian adlitem fees as child support.Affirmed.West Headnotes
[1] Child Support 76E 442
76E Child Support76EIX Enforcement76Ek442 k. Garnishment and Wage Execu- tion. Most Cited CasesTrial court lacked authority to treat guardian adlitem fees imposed in divorce proceeding as “childsupport,” so that fees could be collected throughgarnishment of federal retirement annuity; while or-der awarding fees qualified as a legal process andorder made it clear that award for guardian ad litemfees was to be included as child support, as was re-quired by regulation, treatment of guardian ad litemfees as child support was inconsistent with statelaw. West's Ann.Md.Code, Family Law, § 1-202; 5 C.F.R. §§ 581.102(f), 581.307.
[2] Child Support 76E 605
76E Child Support76EXIII Costs76Ek605 k. Professionals. Most Cited Cases General Assembly did not intend that guardian adlitem fees be deemed part of child support; Legis-lature elected not to include guardian ad litem feesunder its scheme for identifying child support, andsuch treatment inappropriately could subject debtorto possible imprisonment through contempt pro-ceedings and could affect adversely best interest of children by attorney fees displacing other more dir-ect expenses. West's Ann.Md.Code, Family Law, §12-103(a).
[3] Statutes 361 195
361 Statutes361VI Construction and Operation361VI(A) General Rules of Construction 361k187 Meaning of Language361k195 k. Express Mention and Im- plied Exclusion. Most Cited CasesAlthough the maxim of statutory construction ex-pressio unis est exclusio alteris is a useful interpret-ive device, it should be used with caution and notas a rule of law.
[4] Child Support 76E 23
76E Child Support76EII Duty to Support in General76Ek22 Obligation of Parents 76Ek23 k. In General. Most Cited Cases Parents' obligation to support their minor childrenimposes a duty on the parent to provide support andconfers a right on children to receive it.
[5] Child Support 76E 444
76E Child Support76EIX Enforcement76Ek443 Contempt 76Ek444 k. In General. Most Cited CasesA court may employ its contempt powers, includingthe power to imprison, against one who refuses to810 A.2d 947 Page 1371 Md. 591, 810 A.2d 947
(Cite as: 371 Md. 591, 810 A.2d 947)
© 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
comply with an order to pay child support. Md.Rule15-207(e).
[6] Child Support 76E 140(1)
76E Child Support76EIV Amount and Incidents of Award76Ek140 In General 76Ek140(1) k. In General. Most Cited CasesBecause an obligation to pay child support createsan enforceable duty of the parent, a trial court maynot select, at its complete discretion, which of itsorders should be deemed child support; instead, thetrial court must adhere to the Legislature's plan forcalculating the amount and character of a child sup-port award.
[7] Child Support 76E 146
76E Child Support76EIV Amount and Incidents of Award76Ek146 k. Construction, Operation, and Ef- fect of Guidelines. Most Cited CasesChild Support Guidelines provide courts with uni-form criteria that they must consider in awardingchild support and the enumerated criteria consist of calculations to be used in computing the amountone party owes to another in child support.
[8] Child Support 76E 158
76E Child Support76EIV Amount and Incidents of Award76Ek154 Insurance 76Ek158 k. Insurance on Child. Most Cited CasesLike the enumerated factors under the Child Sup-port Guidelines, an order to include a child in a par-ent's health insurance coverage may be treated aschild support. West's Ann.Md.Code, Family Law, §12-102(b).
[9] Child Support 76E 113
76E Child Support76EIII Factors Considered76EIII(C) Factors Relating to Child 76Ek112 Medical Expenses76Ek113 k. In General. Most Cited CasesAn award of expenses related to medical supportfor the child, including neonatal expenses, may betreated as an award for child support. West'sAnn.Md.Code, Family Law, § 12-101(d)(1)(ii).
[10] Judgment 228 829(3)
228 Judgment228XVII Foreign Judgments228k829 Effect of Judgments of United States Courts in State Courts228k829(3) k. Operation and Effect. Most Cited CasesBankruptcy court's determination that, for purposesof bankruptcy law, guardian ad litem fees were “inthe nature of child support” and, therefore, not dis-chargeable debts was not determinative of issue of whether guardian ad litem fees were to be treated aschild support under Maryland law. Bankr.Code, 11U.S.C.A. § 523(a)(5).
 Glenn M. Cooper, Bethesda (David S. Goldberg, Gaithersburg, on brief), for petitioner.Cynthia E. Young, Annapolis, for respondent.BELL, C.J. and ELDRIDGE, RAKER  FN*, WIL-NER, CATHELL, HARRELL and BATTAGLIA, JJ.FN* Judge Raker participated in the oral argument but did not participate in the de-cision or the adoption of this Opinion.
 BATTAGLIA, J.The petitioner in this case, David S. Goldberg, Es-quire, (“Goldberg”), seeks review of the judgmentof the Court of Special Appeals and asks this Courtto determine whether guardian
 ad litem
 fees im-posed pursuant to Maryland Code § 1-202 of the 810 A.2d 947 Page 2371 Md. 591, 810 A.2d 947
(Cite as: 371 Md. 591, 810 A.2d 947)
© 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->