Kaplan v. Kaplan

• Decision Date: 18 November 2020
• Docket Number: No. 3387, Sept. Term, 2018,3387, Sept. Term, 2018
• Citation: 248 Md.App. 358,241 A.3d 960
• Parties: Richard A. KAPLAN v. Chelsea M. KAPLAN
• Court: Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

248 Md.App. 358

241 A.3d 960

Richard A. KAPLAN

v.Chelsea M. KAPLAN

No. 3387, Sept. Term, 2018

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland.

November 18, 2020

Submitted by: Richard A. Kaplan, Bethesda, MD, Pro Se for Appellant

Submitted by: Howard B. Soypher (Webb, Soypher, McGrath, LLC, on the brief), Bethesda, MD, for Appellee

Fader, C.J., Leahy, Deborah S. Eyler (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ.

Leahy, J.

The Circuit Court for Montgomery County granted an absolute divorce to Richard A. Kaplan ("Husband"), the appellant, and Chelsea M. Kaplan ("Wife"), the appellee. The court awarded Husband, in relevant part, primary physical custody of the children and awarded Wife indefinite alimony and child support. Husband filed a timely appeal and presents four issues for our review, which we have reordered and recast into the following three questions:¹

1. Did the circuit court err in awarding indefinite alimony by failing to: (a) consider the parties’ pre-marital standards of living, and (b) make the requisite projections of Wife's future income?

2. Did the circuit court abuse its discretion in awarding child support to the non-custodial parent?

3. Did the circuit court err in failing to consider Wife's spending habits during the marriage and following separation in its calculation of alimony and child support?

We affirm the judgment of the circuit court. First, we perceive no abuse of discretion in the circuit court's award of indefinite alimony to Wife and determine that the circuit court did not err in its consideration of the factors set forth in Maryland Code (2012 Repl. Vol., 2019 Supp.), Family Law Article ("FL"), § 11-106(b)² or its conclusion, under § 11-106(c), that an unconscionable disparity would exist in the parties’ relative standards of living when Wife could be expected to reach her maximum earning potential. Second, discerning no error in the court's findings as to Wife's reasonable expenses for her and the children, we hold that the court did not abuse its discretion by obligating Father to pay monthly child support in the amount of $6,500. In reaching this holding, we conclude that, in an above-Guidelines case, the trial court, in exercising its significant discretion, may employ any rational method in balancing "the best interests and needs of the child with the parents’ financial ability to meet those needs." Ruiz v. Kinoshita , 239 Md. App. 395, 425, 197 A.3d 47 (2018) (quoting Unkle v. Unkle , 305 Md. 587, 597, 505 A.2d 849 (1986) ). Finally, we hold that the circuit court properly considered Wife's spending habits as one of many equitable factors in its determinations of alimony and child support.

BACKGROUND

The parties were married on June 23, 2001 and resided initially in New York City. Wife was completing her master's degree in education and had secured a teaching position. Husband owned a sports management and public relations business. Wife earned less than $40,000 annually after graduating with her masters, and husband earned approximately $250,000 minus expenses. At the time the parties were married, Wife had little or no savings, and Husband paid off her credit card debt.

In 2002, Husband began law school while continuing to work in his business, and Wife continued working as a teacher. After Husband graduated law school in 2005, he wanted to pursue a judicial clerkship in Washington D.C. Wife was pregnant with their first child and her family lived in New York; so, although she did not want to relocate, she agreed to support Husband's aspirations. The parties moved to Maryland in 2005, where they lived for the remainder of their marriage.

The parties had three children together: "Z", born in 2005, "A", born in 2008, and "B", born in 2011. According to Wife, the parties had an agreement that Husband would be the primary wage-earner and she would stay home with the children. Husband claimed, however, that they "didn't really discuss" their plans and planned "to see how things would go" after the birth of their first child. Wife stayed home with the parties’ two children until 2010, when Wife briefly returned to teaching for the 2010-11 school year. In 2011, she became pregnant with the parties’ third child and did not return to teaching the following year. Wife did not return to the workforce again until after the parties’ separation.

The parties separated on February 26, 2017. At the time of the separation, the parties were residing in the jointly owned family home in Bethesda. Following the separation, Wife continued to reside in the family home, and Husband moved to a rented house.

On February 28, 2017, Wife filed a complaint for limited divorce, or, in the alternative, absolute divorce. On April 18, 2017, Husband filed an answer and counterclaim for limited divorce, or, in the alternative, absolute divorce, custody, and other related relief. On December 1, 2017, the circuit court ordered the parties to share joint physical custody of the children and further ordered Husband to pay pendente lite alimony of $5,000 per month and child support of $6,500 per month. On January 31, 2018, following a contested custody trial, the circuit court entered a custody, access, and child support order, granting, inter alia , sole legal custody and primary physical custody of the children to Husband, ordering weekly access between Wife and the children, and terminating Husband's pendente lite child support obligation.

The court then set a three-day merits trial, beginning November 27, 2018, as to the parties’ complaints for divorce and related issues, including alimony and child support. The following additional facts were elicited at the trial: Husband was 47 years old, and Wife was 43 years old. The parties had been married for seventeen years and lived together for almost two years before being married. Husband was employed as the executive vice president of legal and regulatory affairs and general counsel at a trade association and lobby group. In 2017, Husband earned a salary of approximately $1.3 million, including a bonus of $250,000. His employment contract provided that, in 2018, his annual base salary was $1.1 million with opportunities for bonuses. Wife was employed as a long-term substitute teacher, earning an annual salary of $50,000.

According to the testimony of Husband and Wife, they experienced problems throughout their marriage. While they sought marriage counseling numerous times, their marital problems continued. Wife was frustrated by the demands of Husband's work and felt that it interfered with their relationship and his ability to assist in caring for the children. At various points in the marriage, there was suspected and actual marital infidelity by both parties. Wife suffered from depression and panic attacks after learning of Husband's extramarital affair in 2012, which sometimes interfered with her ability to care for the children. Husband testified that Wife's excessive spending was a source of conflict during the marriage, as was her use of marital funds to start a business, which ultimately failed.

At trial, Wife sought an award of indefinite alimony in an amount between $16,000 and $18,000 per month. Wife contended that she could be partly self-supporting, but not entirely self-supporting. She argued that she was entitled to indefinite alimony due to the extraordinary income disparity between the parties, as Husband's income was twenty-six times greater than hers, resulting in an unconscionable disparity in their post-divorce standards of living.

Husband argued that, if alimony was awarded, it only should be for a term of less than three years, rather than an indefinite period, and for an amount less than Wife was requesting. He further averred that Wife could become self-supporting at a certain level, and, after making as much progress as she reasonably can be expected to make toward becoming self-supporting, the respective standards of living of the parties would not be unconscionably disparate.

Wife also requested monthly child support in the amount $7,000 in order to pay her share of expenses for the children, including her housing, food, activities, vacations, clothing and gifts. She argued that she would incur expenses for the children, even though she was not the custodial parent. Husband countered that Wife, as the non-custodial parent, was not entitled to child support, and that her actions during the marriage and since separation would render any such award disguised alimony.

After the trial, the judge delivered a lengthy oral opinion on November 30, 2018 and subsequently issued a judgment of absolute divorce that was filed on December 17, 2018. The court awarded Wife indefinite alimony in the amount of $8,500 per month and child support in the amount of $6,500 per month and entered a monetary award in favor of Wife in the amount of $30,000. Husband noted a timely appeal.

We provide additional facts as relevant in the discussion below.

DISCUSSION

I.Indefinite Alimony

A. Parties’ Contentions

Husband challenges the circuit court's award of indefinite alimony on two bases. First, Husband argues that the circuit court failed to consider the parties’ pre-marital standards of living. Second, Husband avers that the circuit court failed to make the requisite projection of Wife's future income before finding an unconscionable disparity between the parties.

1. Pre-Marital Standards of Living

Husband asserts that the circuit court "overlooked the uncontested evidence introduced at trial that the parties entered the marriage already with a substantial earnings disparity." According to Husband, "[h]ad the [c]ourt considered the issue and found this pre-existing disparity to have existed, its [unconscionable disparity] examination ... would have been fundamentally altered."

Wife counters that the "trial court's award of indefinite alimony was a proper exercise of its discretion" due to the "unconscionable disparity in the parties’ respective lifestyles." Wife avers that the trial court...