Baiyina v. Baiyina, 2085

• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: Opinion by Meredith, J.
• Decision Date: 30 October 2015
• Docket Number: No. 2085,2085
• Citation: Baiyina v. Baiyina, No. 2085 (Md. App. Oct 30, 2015)
• Parties: ALYSSA BAIYINA v. VARICK BAIYINA

ALYSSA BAIYINA v. VARICK BAIYINA

No. 2085

COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND

September Term, 2013

October 30, 2015

UNREPORTED

Meredith, Reed, Raker, Irma S. (Retired, Specially Assigned), JJ.

Opinion by Meredith, J.

* This is an unreported opinion, and it may not be cited in any paper, brief, motion, or other document filed in this Court or any other Maryland Court as either precedent within the rule of stare decisis or as persuasive authority. Md. Rule 1-104.

In this appeal, Alyssa Baiyina, appellant ("Wife" or "appellant"), contends that the Circuit Court for Prince George's County erred in concluding that her claim for alimony from Varick Baiyina, appellee ("Husband" or "appellee"), was barred by res judicata, and in denying her requests for a monetary award and attorneys' fees.

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

Appellant presents three questions for our consideration:

1. Whether the court erred as a matter of law and abused its discretion when it ruled that Ms. Baiyina is precluded from proceeding with her claim for alimony filed in her Counter-Complaint for Absolute Divorce as a matter of res judicata.

2. Whether the Court erred as a matter of law and abused its discretion when the court denied Ms. Baiyina's request for a monetary award.

3. Whether the Court erred as a matter of law and abused its discretion when the court denied Ms. Baiyina's request for attorney fees.

We perceive neither error nor an abuse of discretion on the part of the Circuit Court for Prince George's County, and, for the reasons that follow, affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Wife and Husband were married on August 7, 1993. Two children were born during the parties' marriage, but no issues related to custody or child support are before this Court. After Wife discovered evidence leading her to believe Husband was having an affair, the parties separated on November 19, 2009. Although there were subsequent incidents of sexual cohabitation, there was no resumption of the marital relationship. The last date on which the parties were intimate was March 11, 2011.

On February 7, 2011, Husband filed a complaint for absolute divorce on the basis of a one-year voluntary separation, contending that the parties had separated on November 19,2009, and that there had been no cohabitation since that time. On or about June 8, 2011, Wife filed a counter-complaint for custody, child support, alimony, and other related relief; she did not request a divorce. On September 16, 2011, Husband filed an amended complaint for absolute divorce and other relief, in which he asked to be awarded alimony, both pendente lite and permanently, and a monetary award. He also filed a second amended complaint on November 3, 2011, which was later dismissed based upon Wife's motion. On November 14, 2011, and February 14, 2012, the court heard the merits of Husband's first amended complaint and Wife's counter-complaint. (Husband withdrew his request for alimony at the hearing on November 14, 2011.

On February 22, 2012, the Circuit Court for Prince George's County issued its ruling. The opinion and order reflected that, at the conclusion of Husband's case, Wife had moved for dismissal of Husband's prayer for divorce because of Husband's failure to provide proof and corroboration of the grounds. The court stated that Wife's motion in that regard had been granted, and Husband's prayer for divorce had been dismissed. The opinion noted that "[t]he matter then proceeded on [Wife's] Counter-Complaint for alimony, custody, child support and attorney's fees," and that "[m]uch of the trial time was spent on the [Wife's] prayer for alimony. The [Wife] seeks alimony or a reservation of alimony based on her Counter-Complaint for alimony." In this regard, the opinion set forth the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:

[Husband] asserts that alimony should be denied at the outset because the [Wife] did not prove and corroborate a ground for divorce. Considering the testimony of the parties as well as that of the [Husband's] Uncle and the [Wife's] Sister, the Court concludes that the [Wife] found evidence of an extramarital relationship between [Husband] and another woman. [Wife] confronted [Husband] with that evidence and the [Husband] left the marital home and moved in with his paramour where he continues to reside. The Court finds that while the [Wife] at the outset wanted the [Husband] to leave in order to provide her with some space, the [Wife] did not at that time or for a subsequent period thereafter want the marriage to be terminated. The Court further finds that the [Wife's] willingness to engage in sexual relations with the [Husband] until March 2011 was in effect her attempt to lure the [Husband] back into the marital home.

The Court finds the [Wife] to be credible that since March of 2011 the parties have continuously [lived] separate and apart without sexual cohabitation. The Court finds that the totality of the evidence corroborates the fact that while the [Husband's] departure from the marital home in the first instance was at the [Wife's] request[,] his remaining separate, at least through March 2011, constituted desertion by him of the marriage. Further, the Court does not find the [Wife's] having had relations in an attempt to lure the [Husband] back into the marital home to have been condonation in light of the [Husband's] admitted continuation of this relationship with the paramour after that date. Accordingly, the Court finds the [Husband's] contention that the [Wife] is not entitled to alimony on the basis of failure to sufficiently prove and corroborate a ground for divorce is without merit.

In determining whether alimony is appropriate in any case the Court must consider all the following factors contained in Family Law Article 11-105:

1. Ability of the Party Seeking Alimony to be Wholly or Partly Self-Supporting:The Court herein finds at the present time that the [Wife] is self-supporting[.]

2. The Time Necessary for the Party Seeking Alimony to Obtain Education or Training to Enable that Party to Find Suitable Employment: The Court finds that the [Wife] has already found suitable employment.

3. The Standard of Living that the Parties Established During Their Marriage: Without question the parties established a lavish lifestyle during their marriage. That lifestyle which included numerous extensive vacations was based on the very substantial earnings of the[Husband]. That lifestyle no longer exists for either party.

4. The Duration of the Marriage: The parties were married in 1993 and are still married.

5. The Contributions Monetary and Non-Monetary of Each Party to the Well Being of the Family: While the parties were together both made equal contributions to the wellbeing of the family. The [Husband's] contributions were principally monetary. The [Wife's] were principally non-monetary.

6. The Circumstances that Contributed to the Estrangement of the Parties: The parties separated due to the [Husband's] extra marital affair.

7. The Age of Each Party: The [Husband] is 41 and the [Wife] is 47 years of age.

8. The Physical and Mental Condition of Each Party: The [Husband] is in good physical and mental condition. The [Wife] has some minor health problems.

9. The Ability of the Party from Whom Alimony is Sought to Meet that Party's Needs While Meeting the Needs of the Party Seeking Alimony: This factor was a very major one in the testimony herein. The [Wife] contends that the [Husband] has tremendous earning capacity as demonstrated by prior earnings. The [Wife] suggests that the [Husband's] current income is only temporarily less awaiting the conclusion of this case. The Court finds that the evidence does not bear out her contention. It is true that the [Husband] earned a great deal of money until 2007. At that time he left a very lucrative sales position to enter into a business venture which the [Wife] referred to as the [Husband's] "dream". The uncontradicted testimony from the [Wife] and her sister was that the stress of the [Husband's] employment in 2007 had him to the breaking point. His leaving that employment was the result of his wanting to pursue the venture and to relieve himself of stress. But in addition,the house had just been refinanced and there was enough cash to cover in the interim until the new business became profitable. The [Wife's] sister's testimony was that the venture ultimately failed because the funding was not obtained. All this took place two years prior to the parties' separation. The Court finds in no way could the [Husband's] leaving his lucrative employment be considered a stratagem to avoid paying alimony.

The Court finds that the [Husband's] future income potential at this time is highly speculative. Of significance is the fact that the [Husband] has been away from actively selling radio advertising for a period of almost five years. Further, the economy today is significantly different th[a]n it was five years ago and there is no evidence to suggest that the [Husband] is any[ ]more capable of enduring high stress now than he was in 2007. Accordingly, the Court finds that at the present time there is little ability on the part of the [Husband] to meet his needs while also meeting the needs of the party seeking alimony.

10. Agreement Between the Parties: None in this case.

11. The Financial Needs and Financial Resources of Each Party: Neither party has assets of any substance and both have substantial debt.

Considering all the above the Court concludes that rehabilitative alimony is not appropriate herein.

The Court may award alimony for an indefinite period if it finds that due to age, illness, infirm[it]y or disability the party seeking alimony cannot be reasonably expected to make substantial progress towards becoming self-supporting or even after the party seeking alimony will have made as much progress towards becoming self-supporting as can reasonably be expected the respective standards of living for the parties will be unconscionably

...