Liccione v. Goron-Futcher
| Decision Date | 04 November 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. 3116,3116 |
| Parties | JOHN LICCIONE v. MOEA GORON-FUTCHER |
| Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Circuit Court for Howard County
UNREPORTED
Opinion by Wells, 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.
On June 25, 2018, Moea Goron-Futcher, appellee ("Wife"), filed a complaint for absolute divorce in the Circuit Court for Howard County against her husband, John Liccione, appellant ("Husband"). In addition to requesting an absolute divorce, the complaint sought to enforce the terms of a marital property settlement agreement the parties signed nearly six months earlier in January 2018. That agreement contained specific terms relating to alimony, personal and real property, financial accounts, and certain shares of stock.
Pertinent to this appeal, on July 10, 2018, Wife filed a pleading titled, "Motion to Enjoin [Husband] from Dissipation of Marital Assets." Later, on September 19, 2018, Wife filed what she called "Notices of Adverse Interest" to "alert" various financial institutions of her interest in marital property held within them. Husband moved to strike the Notice of Adverse Interest, moved to strike as untimely an affidavit Wife also filed, and moved for sanctions, all of which the court denied.
On January 7, 2019, the circuit court granted the parties an absolute divorce. Eight days later, Husband filed a motion for reconsideration of judgment of absolute divorce. The circuit court denied that motion after a hearing on March 4, 2019.
Husband filed a timely appeal and asks the following questions, which we have condensed and rephrased for purposes of clarity and brevity:1
As we will discuss, we perceive no error and affirm the circuit court.
This case comes to us after a lengthy and contentious series of legal proceedings. The parties were married for nearly seven years before Husband filed a complaint for absolute divorce on March 10, 2017. On May 25, 2017, Wife was granted a protective order against Husband arising from a physical altercation that occurred between them.Husband was later arrested and incarcerated for criminal assault. After his arrest, Husband was transferred to the Springfield Psychiatric Hospital in Sykesville, Maryland for mental and somatic treatment. On December 1, 2017, the Howard County Circuit Court determined that Husband was mentally competent to stand trial and he was released from the psychiatric facility.
Five days after Husband's release, at a proceeding before the circuit court on December 6, 2017, the parties, through their respective counsel, informed the circuit court that they had reached a marital property settlement agreement ("MPSA"), which resolved all issues arising from the marriage.2 After being sworn, both parties acknowledged the essential terms of the agreement on the record. This agreement was later reduced to writing and signed by both parties on January 10, 2018. Among other things, the MPSA required Husband to transfer to Wife 50,000 of 100,000 shares of Tenable, Inc. stock which the couple acquired during their marriage; $75,498.21 was to be transferred to Wife from Husband's Fidelity Investment retirement account via a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO"); and all funds held in a 529 college savings plan were to be maintained for the benefit of Wife's daughter.
Another important provision in the MPSA was that Wife would assert her spousal privilege in Husband's pending criminal trial arising from the domestic incident. That trial was scheduled for March 26, 2018. However, because the divorce hearing was scheduled for February 1, 2018, the parties were faced with the fact that Wife would lose the right toassert her spousal privilege, as the parties would no longer be married by the date of the criminal trial. Accordingly, both parties agreed to postpone the divorce hearing, and, if for some reason, Wife could not assert her marital privilege at the criminal trial, the parties agreed to jointly dismiss and refile the complaint for absolute divorce.
That contemplated scenario is exactly what happened; for reasons not fully disclosed, Wife did not assert her spousal privilege, as planned. Consequently, on January 23, 2018, the parties filed a joint line dismissing without prejudice the complaint for absolute divorce, thereby protecting Wife's spousal immunity.
In what might be described as a provocative move, on May 24, 2018, the day the Final Protective Order expired and nearly two months after the conclusion of Husband's criminal case, Husband asked the circuit court to declare the MPSA null and void. Husband's motion led Wife to file several pleadings of her own.
On June 25, 2018, Wife refiled a complaint for absolute divorce in the Circuit Court for Howard County and subsequently filed a motion to enjoin Husband from dissipation of marital assets, fearing that Husband would squander her portion of the marital estate before the divorce hearing. Wife also requested that Husband be prohibited from accessing any marital property specified in the MPSA. The circuit court denied that motion on August 1, 2018.
On July 23, 2018, Husband filed a Counter-Complaint for Absolute Divorce, and surprisingly, requesting that the terms of the MPSA be incorporated and made a part of, but not merged in, any judgment of absolute divorce. Three days later, Tenable, Inc. opened with an Initial Public Offering and its stock shares rose drastically. At a September7, 2018 hearing, Wife attempted to finalize the divorce and to submit a court order transferring her portion of the Tenable stock per the MPSA. Husband opposed both of Wife's attempts, and the court rescheduled the hearing for January 7, 2019.
Meanwhile, on September 19, 2018, Wife filed with the court a renewed Notice of Adverse Interest to Tenable, Inc., and two Notices of Adverse Interest to Fidelity Investments regarding the couple's IRA and 529 college savings plan. Then, on September 28, 2018 and October 4, 2018, Tenable notified Husband of its receipt of Wife's Notice of Adverse Interest and informed him that it refused to lift a restrictive stock legend on the entire 100,000 Tenable shares rather than Wife's one-half marital share. As a result, on October 7, 2018, Husband filed suit against Tenable seeking, among other things, to have the restrictive legend removed from all 100,000 shares.
Four days later, on October 11, 2018, Husband moved to strike Wife's Notices of Adverse Interest, and, later, filed a Motion for Sanctions and Request for Hearing on October 30, 2018. In response, on October 15, 2018, Wife filed an Answer to Husband's motion and then submitted an affidavit in support of her answer on November 3, 2018. Husband and Wife filed numerous answers in response3 and a hearing was scheduled for December 19, 2018.
At the December 19 hearing, the Circuit Court for Howard County took evidence and testimony from both parties regarding Wife's Notices of Adverse Interest and Husband's motion to strike and motion for sanctions. As will be discussed, the circuit court denied Husband's motions to strike and motion for sanctions. Also, at this hearing the circuit court granted the parties a judgment of absolute divorce. Less than one month later, on January 15, 2019, Husband asked the court to reconsider the judgment of absolute divorce in an attempt to re-open the divorce for further proceedings in relation to the parties' settlement agreement. The court denied Husband's motion to reconsider. Further facts and details of the proceedings will be provided, if needed.
Husband first contends that the circuit court erred when it denied his motion to strike Wife's "Notices of Adverse Interest" and the supporting affidavit. Husband posits that the circuit court should have stricken Wife's affidavit because it was untimely. Wife submitted a supporting affidavit nearly three weeks after she filed an answer to Husband's motion to strike. Husband reasons that the plain meaning of Maryland Rule 2-311(d) necessarily requires that an affidavit in support of a response to a motion and the response be filed simultaneously. If the court had stricken the affidavit, Husband argues that the court would not have considered any new facts contained in the affidavit before deciding his motion to strike. In Husband's estimation, because Wife failed to support her answer/response witha timely affidavit, Wife's opposition lacked the "required proof" and was insufficient to overcome Husband's motion as a matter of law. As such, the court's failure to strike the affidavit was error. We disagree and explain.
The decision to grant or deny a party's motion to strike lies within the discretion of the trial court. Patapsco Associates Ltd. Partnership v. Gurany, 80 Md. App. 200, 204 (1989) (citing Lancaster v. Gardiner, 225 Md. 260, 207 (1961)). "Absent prejudice to the defendant, the motion to strike ordinarily should be denied[.]" Patapsco Associates Ltd., 80 Md. App. at 204 (internal citation omitted). As such, motions to strike are reviewed for an abuse of discretion...
To continue reading
Request your trial