Harper v. Harper
Citation | 448 A.2d 916,294 Md. 54 |
Decision Date | 23 July 1982 |
Docket Number | No. 92,92 |
Parties | Sylvester E. HARPER v. Amaryllis M. HARPER. |
Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Steven R. Migdal, Annapolis (Manis, Wilkinson, Snider & Goldsborough, Chartered, Annapolis, on brief), for appellee.
Argued before SMITH, ELDRIDGE, COLE, DAVIDSON and RODOWSKY, JJ., and J. DUDLEY DIGGES, Ret'd, Specially Assigned Judge.
This case presents two questions concerning the characterization and equitable distribution of certain property as marital property under Maryland Code (1974, 1980 Repl.Vol.) § 3-6A-01(e) of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article. More particularly, it initially presents the question whether real property, purchased under an installment contract and paid for in part before marriage and in part during marriage, is marital property. Additionally, it presents the question whether a marital residence constructed on that real property during marriage is marital property.
The relevant statutory provisions are § 3-6A-01(e) and § 3-6A-05(a), (b), and (c).
Section 3-6A-01(e) provides:
(Emphasis added.)
Section 3-6A-05(a) provides in pertinent part:
"(a) In granting an absolute divorce or annulment ... the court shall determine which property is marital property if the division of property is an issue." (Emphasis added.)
Section 3-6A-05(b) and (c) provide:
In 1950 the petitioner, Sylvester E. Harper (husband), then unmarried, purchased an unimproved parcel of real property for a purchase price of approximately $355.00. The purchase was made under a land installment contract requiring a monthly payment of approximately $6.90. Before his marriage, the husband made all of the payments that came due.
On 3 November 1951, the husband married the respondent, Amaryllis M. Harper (wife). During the marriage, the husband continued to make all of the payments that came due until all of the requisite payments had been made.
In 1967 the husband personally built a house, costing approximately $21,600.00, upon the real property. That house was used by the parties as their marital residence. Although the wife's name appeared on the mortgage and she was legally obligated under it, the husband made all of the mortgage payments that came due on the marital residence. Additionally, the husband paid for all of the expenses associated with the upkeep and repair of the marital residence.
According to the wife, a substantial part of the payment on a previous house jointly owned by the parties was provided by her mother, and the proceeds of the sale of that house were used to finance the construction of the marital residence built in 1967. According to the husband's pleadings, he made all of the payments for the land, construction of the marital residence, and its upkeep. At all times, the property was titled solely in the husband's name.
On 14 March 1980, in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County, the wife filed a bill of complaint for an absolute divorce. She requested, among other things, "that the Court determine the ownership of all the real property regardless of how titled, and order the sale of said real property, and divide the proceeds equitably."
At trial, there was evidence to show that there was an outstanding mortgage indebtedness of approximately $8,300.00 on the marital residence which was then appraised at a fair market value of approximately $65,500.00. There was no evidence to show the precise source and extent of the funds utilized during the marriage for payments for the land, construction of the marital residence, and its upkeep.
On 10 November 1980, a decree was entered granting the wife, among other things, an absolute divorce and a division of real property. More particularly, the trial court declared that the real property consisting of the lot with the marital residence upon it was marital property and ordered a sale in lieu of partition with each party receiving one-half of the proceeds of the sale. In reaching this result, the trial court said:
The husband appealed to the Court of Special Appeals. Harper v. Harper, 49 Md.App. 339, 431 A.2d 761 (1981). In determining that the real property and marital residence were marital property, the Court of Special Appeals said:
Harper, 49 Md.App. at 345-46, 431 A.2d at 764.
In footnote 3, the Court of Special Appeals said:
" 3 See State Roads Commission v. Orleans, 239 Md. 368, 376-377, 211 A.2d 715 (1965), in which the Court of Appeals, in a condemnation case, held that the word 'acquire' means to become an owner of real property by obtaining legal title, rather than mere possession.
"See also, Levi, The Tax Consequences of the Maryland Marital Property Act, 9 U.Balt.L.Rev. 12, 15-16 n.17 (1979), discussing the argument that real property owned by a spouse prior to marriage but subject to a mortgage, may be deemed marital property if the mortgage is paid off with marital property funds." Harper, 49 Md.App. at 345, 431 A.2d at 764.
Thus, the Court of Special Appeals found, for reasons different from those expressed by the trial court, that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Lohman v. Lohman
...549 A.2d 13 (1988); Niroo v. Niroo, 313 Md. 226, 545 A.2d 35 (1988); Grant v. Zich, 300 Md. 256, 477 A.2d 1163 (1984); Harper v. Harper, 294 Md. 54, 448 A.2d 916 (1982); Deering v. Deering, 292 Md. 115, 437 A.2d 883 (1981); John F. Fader, II & Richard J. Gilbert, Maryland Family Law Chapter......
-
Alston v. Alston
...549 A.2d 13 (1988); Niroo v. Niroo, 313 Md. 226, 545 A.2d 35 (1988); Grant v. Zich, 300 Md. 256, 477 A.2d 1163 (1984); Harper v. Harper, 294 Md. 54, 448 A.2d 916 (1982); Deering v. Deering, 292 Md. 115, 437 A.2d 883 (1981); John F. Fader, II and Richard J. Gilbert, Maryland Family Law, Chap......
-
Doe v. Doe
...distribution deprives a spouse of nonmarital property and is, therefore, contrary to that legislative intent. Harper v. Harper, 294 Md. 54, 80, 448 A.2d 916 (1982). Therefore, any potential monetary award will be circumscribed by the pool of assets that constitute the marital property. Here......
-
Queen v. Queen
...733 (1980), and that the Marital Property Act should be construed liberally to effect its broad remedial purpose. Harper v. Harper, 294 Md. 54, 64, 448 A.2d 916 (1982). Nonetheless, we hold that only the portion of the husband's award compensating for loss of earning capacity during the mar......
-
Domestic Relations - Barry B. Mcgough and Elinor H. Hitt
...used to satisfy that debt. See id. 145. 259 Ga. at 73, 377 S.E.2d at 667. 146. Id. at 76, 377 S.E.2d at 669 (quoting Harper v. Harper, 448 A.2d 916, 929 (Md. 1982)). 147. See id. at 73, 377 S.E.2d at 667. 148. See 285 Ga. at 865, 684 S.E.2d 600. 120 MERCER LAW REVIEW [Vol. 62 Three cases in......
-
§ 7.02 Different Approaches to Characterizing Property Acquired Over Time
...v. Brandenberg, 617 S.W.2d 871 (Ky. App. 1981). Maine: Tibbetts v. Tibbetts, 406 A.2d 70 (Me. 1979). Maryland: Harper v. Harper, 294 Md. 54, 448 A.2d 916 (1982). Missouri: Hoffman v. Hoffman, 676 S.W.2d 817 (1984). [27] Windham v. Araya, 286 Ga. 501, 690 S.E.2d 168 (2010).[28] See Kost v. K......
-
§ 7.03 Characterizing Installment Purchases
...80 Cal. App. 222, 251 Pac. 640 (1926).[49] In a credit purchase situation, there is such an offset. See § 7.05 infra.[50] Harper v. Harper, 294 Md. 54, 448 A.2d 916, 929 (1982). ...