Bagley v. Bagley

• Decision Date: 01 September 1993
• Docket Number: No. 75,75
• Citation: 98 Md.App. 18,632 A.2d 229
• Parties: Patricia J. BAGLEY v. Warren P. BAGLEY. ,
• Court: Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

Page 18

98 Md.App. 18

632 A.2d 229

Patricia J. BAGLEY v. Warren P. BAGLEY.

No. 75, Sept. Term, 1993.

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland.

Nov. 1, 1993.

Certiori Denied March 9, 1994.

Patricia Bagley, pro se.

T. Joseph Touhey, Glen Burnie, for appellee.

Argued before BISHOP, ALPERT and DAVIS, JJ.

DAVIS, Judge.

This is an appeal from an order issued by the Circuit Court for Montgomery County adopting the findings and recommendations of a Domestic Relations Master and denying appellant's exceptions to the master's recommendations.

Appellant presents the following questions for our review:

I. Did the trial court err in reviewing the findings and recommendations of the master?

II. Did the trial court err in making its award of increased child support when it failed to maintain the children at a standard of living comparable to the father's?

III. Did the trial court err in making its award of increased child support when it failed to consider the fundamental process established by §§ 12-201 through 204 of the Family Law Article of the Maryland Annotated Code (FL)?

IV. Did the trial court err in awarding attorney's fees in light of the parties' income levels and the circumstances of this case?

FACTS

Patricia J. Bagley (appellant) and Warren J. Bagley (appellee) were married on June 28, 1975. The Bagleys are the parents of two sons, Steven (born July 7, 1978) and Christopher (born January 6, 1981). The parties were divorced by the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County on January 9, 1990. The Judgment of Divorce incorporated the parties' August 23, 1989 Separation and Property Settlement Agreement, which named Mrs. Bagley as sole legal custodian of the children and required Dr. Bagley to pay $2,500 per month in child support. In addition, Dr. Bagley agreed to pay for the children's medical expenses and $1,000 per month in alimony for a minimum of five years.

On October 22, 1991 Mrs. Bagley filed a complaint in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County seeking an increase in child support based upon a substantial increase in Dr. Bagley's income. On March 20, 1992 a hearing on the matter was held before a Domestic Relations Master. During the hearing it was established that Dr. Bagley's annual income was $83,448 in 1989; $235,419 in 1990; and $507,360 in 1991. The master's report concluded that Dr. Bagley had excess monthly income of just under $10,000 after taxes and expenses. The master concluded that Dr. Bagley could "afford any reasonable child support"; based on the parties' disparate income levels, however, Mrs. Bagley reasonably could not be expected to contribute to the support of the children.

Mrs. Bagley claimed monthly income of $1,000 alimony from Dr. Bagley and $389 disability income from the Veterans Administration. Mrs. Bagley's estimated tax burden was $15 per month, leaving income of $1,374 per month.

Mrs. Bagley claimed $4,577 in monthly expenses for Steven and Christopher, based on the following itemization: rent ($733); utilities ($150); telephone ($60); food ($666); clothing ($250); medical/dental ($65); ¹ transportation ($594); ² automobile insurance ($46); other household expenses ($30); recreation ($787); ³ incidentals ($301); ⁴ and periodic payments ($895). ⁵

The master found, however, that $1,850 of these expenses were "inappropriate expenses to be attributed to the children," leaving total expenses for Steven and Christopher at $2,722 per month. Inappropriate expenses consisted of legal fees ($500), periodic payments for Mrs. Bagley's debts ($340), new furniture ($130), gifts ($40), vacation and camp ($300), payments for a new car ($480), and medical and dental expenses ($65). The master's four-page report did not offer an explanation for her findings regarding the children's expenses, other than a parenthetical note following the disallowance of the medical and dental expenses, stating that Dr. Bagley is responsible for all medical expenses.

Finally, the master concluded that this case was not appropriate for application of the Maryland Child Support Guidelines because the total income of the parties is far in excess of the maximum considered in the guidelines and because of "other provisions of the parties' Agreement."

The master made the following recommendations:

1. That the defendant pay to the plaintiff child support in the amount of $2,722.00 per month, commencing and accounting from November 1, 1991, and payable on the 1st day of each month in advance.

2. That all payments of child support due on or after May 1, 1992, be paid through the Child Support Enforcement Division of the Circuit Court for Montgomery County.

3. That the defendant pay to the plaintiff as a contribution toward her attorney's fees for the issue of child support only the sum of $500.00.

On April 6, 1992 Mrs. Bagley filed a memorandum of exceptions to the master's findings. Mrs. Bagley's exceptions, as rephrased by us, were as follows:

1. Legal Fees. The master's finding that $500 per month in legal fees was not appropriate to attribute to the children was incorrect. These fees were incurred by Mrs. Bagley while pursuing increased child support and defending against Dr. Bagley's child custody suit. ⁶

2. Periodic Payments. The master's finding that periodic payments to USAA Visa, HFC, John Burke, and Citibank (totaling $340) were Mrs. Bagley's debts was incorrect because Mrs. Bagley testified that these expenses were attributed to food, clothing, and activities for the children, and money borrowed for attorney's fees. At oral argument before the chancellor, Mrs. Bagley also associated these expenses with moving from home to home in an attempt to find suitable housing.

3. Furniture. The master incorrectly denied expenses for replacement furniture even though Mrs. Bagley testified to the inadequacy of the children's current furniture.

4. Gifts. The master incorrectly reduced gift expenses from $80 to $40 per month. These expenses, according to Mrs. Bagley, were fair, reasonable, and uncontradicted during the master's hearing.

5. Vacation/Camp. The master incorrectly denied expenses for a vacation to visit family members once a year and attend two summer camps. Mrs. Bagley underscores that Dr. Bagley acknowledged during the hearing the importance of the Odyssey of the Mind Camp, whose mission was never clearly put on the record.

6. New Vehicle. The master incorrectly denied payment for a minivan that Mrs. Bagley claimed was necessary to transport her sons, their equipment, and friends. Mrs. Bagley admits that her 1990 Corsica is suitable for herself, but she argues that a minivan would improve the lives of her sons.

7. Medical/Dental Expenses. Mrs. Bagley argues that this expense was limited to over-the-counter items not contemplated as medical expenses paid by Dr. Bagley.

8. Attorney's Fees Awarded. The award of $500 in attorney's fees is inadequate based on Mrs. Bagley's testimony that her costs for the child support hearing would total $4,000; ⁷ Mrs. Bagley's brief to this Court claims attorney's fees of $5,013.50. Moreover, Mrs. Bagley alleges that Dr. Bagley's attorney caused unreasonable delays that added to her legal expenses.

9. Improper Influence. The master was improperly influenced by her irritation with Mrs. Bagley's counsel.

10. Child Support Guidelines. The increase of $222 per month in child support payments was inadequate in light of Dr. Bagley's increased income level and contradicted the statutory guidelines codified in FL §§ 12-201 through 204.

Dr. Bagley filed an Answer refuting each of Mrs. Bagley's exceptions. Dr. Bagley asserted that exception 1--legal fees were expenses attributable to Mrs. Bagley and may be awarded by the court at a future time but should not be the basis for an increase in child support at the present time. No specific citation was made to the record.

In response to exceptions 2--periodic payments, 3--furniture, 4--gifts, 5--vacation/camp, and 6--new vehicle, Dr. Bagley asserted that these expenses "relate to debts, consumer purchases, or other chattel that this Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant has purchased for herself and seeks now to use as the basis to claim a need for increased child support." No citation was made to the record.

In response to exception 7--medical/dental expenses, Dr. Bagley referred to his past record of paying for the children's health care needs, as well as his intention to continue doing so. Dr. Bagley answered exception 8--attorney's fees awarded by arguing that a request for $4,000 for counsel fees for a simple child support hearing was patently unreasonable and that the record did not support Mrs. Bagley's claim that delays caused by Dr. Bagley's attorney resulted in increased fees. In response to exception 9--improper influence, Dr. Bagley claimed that the record spoke for itself but did not cite any specific portion.

Dr. Bagley responded to exception 10--child support guidelines by arguing that the findings of the master properly accounted for the total expenses for each party. Dr. Bagley argued that, although the comparative lifestyles of the parties have changed, all parties were doing "appreciably better" than at the time of the divorce decree.

On June 25, 1992, the trial judge issued a Memorandum and Order adopting the master's findings and recommendations. The Memorandum read in relevant parts:

The Master served her Findings of Fact and Recommendations on March 30, 1992 and recommended an increase in child support payments to $2,722 per month and for the Defendant to pay $500 toward the Plaintiff's attorney's fees.

The Plaintiff filed Exceptions on April 6, 1992, stating that the Master should have proposed child support in the amount of $4,577 per month based on her monthly expenses. The Master determined that $1,855 of the Plaintiff's monthly expenses were inappropriate to be assessed to the children and therefore proposed $2,722 per month in child support and $500.00 in attorney's fees for the...