Jones v. Jones
| Decision Date | 23 November 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. 369,369 |
| Parties | MAISHA JONES v. ALONZO JONES, JR. |
| Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Circuit Court for Prince George's County
Case No. CAD1715885
UNREPORTED
Graeff, Arthur, Battaglia, Lynne A. (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ.
Opinion by Graeff, 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.
Maisha Jones ("Mother"), appellant, and Alonzo Jones, Jr. ("Father"), appellee, were married in May 2011, and they are the parents of three minor children. The parties separated in 2017. On March 13, 2018, the court granted Mother a limited divorce, awarding her sole legal and physical custody of the children. The parties subsequently filed for absolute divorce. On June 5, 2020, the court issued a Judgment of Absolute Divorce, awarding the parties joint legal and physical custody of the children, ordering Mother to pay child support and partial attorney's fees, and granting Father an additional 20% of the proceeds from the marital home as a monetary award.
On appeal, Mother presents the following questions for this Court's review, which we have rephrased and reordered, as follows:
For the reasons set forth below, we shall affirm the judgment with respect to custody, vacate the judgment with respect to the monetary award, the child support award, and attorney's fees, and remand for further proceedings.
Mother and Father were married on May 13, 2011. During the course of the marriage, the parties had three children, who were ages nine, seven, and three at the time of the trial. Mother also had sole physical custody of her 15-year-old daughter from a priormarriage. In January 2012, the parties purchased a home in Bowie. It was titled as tenants by the entirety, but the mortgage was solely in Father's name. Both parties contributed to the purchase of the home, with Father paying the $15,000 down payment, and Mother paying the $2,000 earnest money deposit.
The parties maintained separate bank accounts throughout the marriage and divided the household expenses. Father paid the mortgage ($1,500/month), utilities ($350-$400/month), property taxes, health insurance (including for Mother and Mother's daughter), and a portion of the childcare expenses. Mother paid for food, home repairs, clothing, leisure and entertainment activities for the family, and the remainder of the childcare expenses.
Father was employed as a mechanical engineer at the Social Security Administration, earning approximately $97,000 per year. At the start of the marriage, Mother worked varying hours at several different area hospitals as a labor and delivery nurse. As a result, her income fluctuated between $30,000-$60,000 per year. There were significant periods, however, where Mother did not work due to difficult pregnancies and her decision to stay home for six months to a year after the children were born. Mother also received child support from her ex-husband.
In April 2013, Mother started a business with a partner called Ivenous Therapy Solutions, an out-patient medical infusion center for patients with chronic illnesses. Mother made a $4,257 capital contribution to the business from a savings account set up to hold her daughter's child support payments. The business dissolved in 2017 due to apartner dispute, but Mother started a new business called MedVenous, LLC in early 2018, which provided the same services in the same location. Mother's grandparents initially loaned her $50,000 for the new business, and after a confidential settlement was reached in the dissolution litigation involving Ivenous, those funds were transferred to MedVenous. Mother was a 23% owner of MedVenous, sharing ownership interest with two other members, as well as her mother, who was a 30% shareholder. Mother testified that her income from the business was approximately $60,000 per year.
Due to increased tensions in the marriage, the parties separated on June 12, 2017, and Father moved out of the marital home. On June 29, 2017, Mother filed in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County a Complaint for Limited Divorce or in the Alternative, An Absolute Divorce and Request for Pendente Lite Hearing. At a hearing on February 16, 2018, Mother requested sole legal and physical custody, child support, and use and possession of the marital home.1 Mother requested no visitation for Father, or alternatively, daytime visits only, based on her assertion that he had an unstable housing situation and was living in his car. She testified that the children remained with her in the marital home, but Father was still paying partial daycare costs, the mortgage, and the utilities.
On March 13, 2018, the court granted a Judgment for Limited Divorce, awarding sole legal and physical custody of the three children to Mother, with reasonable access for Father at Mother's discretion. Mother also was awarded use and possession of the marital home for up to three years. The court then ordered that, in lieu of paying child supportdirectly to Mother, Father continue to pay the mortgage, utilities, and certain daycare expenses, totaling $2,640 per month.
On April 25, 2018, Father filed a Motion to Modify Child Support, Custody and Visitation. He requested sole legal and physical custody, or alternatively, shared custody, and a modification of child support. In support of these requests, he stated that "[t]here are material changes in circumstances that require a modification." On July 9, 2018, Father filed a Complaint for Absolute Divorce, Custody, and Other Relief.2 On August 16, 2018, Mother filed a Supplemental Complaint for an Absolute Divorce and other relief, including that she be granted sole physical and legal custody, a monetary award, and continued use and possession of the home, followed by an Order transferring ownership of the property to her.
Trial ensued on July 18, 2019, August 19-20, 2019, and January 21, 2020. Father testified that, when he had visitation with the boys, he stayed at his parents' house in Lanham, and otherwise he lived with a friend in White Marsh because it was closer to work in Baltimore. At the time the home study of his parents' house was conducted, the children's furniture had not yet arrived, but he testified that the home now had a bunk bed for the two younger boys and a separate room with a twin bed for the oldest child, plusdressers and closets.3 Father testified that he had seen the children no more than five times since the parties' separation in June 2017 because Mother had denied visitation and ignored his phone calls and texts. He stated: "[I]t got to the point where I just stopped trying to communicate."
Mother testified that, following the separation, Father initially was active in the children's lives, but "as the months went by," he "stopped reaching out as much" and refused to answer his phone when she or the children called from her cell phone. She stated that she bought a house phone for the boys to call him on, and they had spoken that way "a couple times." Mother testified that she invited Father to events, including the children's birthday parties, but Father "never show[ed] an interest." She stated that the boys had more than five visits with Father in 2018.4
Two private investigators testified on Mother's behalf. Jamie Spaulding, one of the private investigators, testified that, following the separation, he observed Father's vehicle "on numerous occasions and quite often at a truck stop" in Laurel, "as well as several other hotels and motels around the tri-state area." Derek Crumbley testified that he had surveilled Father on numerous occasions and had observed him spending the night at various locations, but never at his parents' home. He acknowledged, however, that he hadonly witnessed Father with the boys on two occasions, once at the parents' house during the day and another time at a park. Mother testified that Father had told her that he was "homeless," and the boys reported going to a motel on certain occasions.
With respect to MedVenous, Mother testified that the business had no value because it was not profitable and was currently in six-figure debt due to recent litigation with CareFirst. She stated that she took a $60,000 annual member draw from the company, and the business was her only source of income. She asserted that the company was her separate property because she started Ivenous with money from her daughter's account, and the capital for MedVenous came from money rolled over from Ivenous plus the loan from her grandparents.
On cross-examination, Father's counsel introduced MedVenous' bank statements for January, March, April, and May 2019. The statements showed numerous direct transfers from MedVenous' seven business accounts to Mother's checking account with the same bank.5 There also were various transfers from the business accounts to the MedVenous credit card, which Mother testified was used by the employees for business related expenses. Father also introduced MedVenous' bank statements from 2018,showing numerous additional transfers from the business accounts to Mother's checking account.
Although Mother denied using the business accounts for her personal expenses, she testified that some of these transfers were member draw "advances" or "loan[s] from the business to cover [her] legal fees," which she intended to pay back. She also testified that she transferred money from the business accounts to "pay off [th...
To continue reading
Request your trial