Nwadigo v. Nwadigo
| Decision Date | 05 December 2022 |
| Docket Number | 436-2022 |
| Parties | CHIDOZIE NWADIGO v. NAYA NWADIGO |
| Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Circuit Court for Frederick County Case No C-10-FM-19-000612
OPINION [*]
For the reasons discussed below, we shall affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand the child support and monetary award determinations for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.
On August 4, 2011, C. Nwadigo and N. Nwadigo were married in Frederick County, Maryland. During the marriage, the parties had two children: M., born February 24, 2014, and E., born April 15, 2018. In March of 2019, C. Nwadigo moved out of the family home. As the trial court noted, "[t]estimony at trial suggested that domestic violence issues contributed to the marital breakup." Both parties obtained temporary protective orders, but neither proceeded to a final protective order.
In April of 2019, C. Nwadigo filed a complaint for absolute divorce. The following month, the court entered a pendente lite order setting forth a temporary consent order concerning custody, visitation, and child support. In April of 2022, after a two-day merits hearing, the court issued an order of divorce and corresponding ten-page memorandum opinion.
Specifically, the court awarded primary physical custody of the children to N. Nwadigo, shared legal custody to both parties, with tie-breaking authority to N. Nwadigo, and set forth a visitation schedule. The court also set C. Nwadigo's monthly child support obligation at $1,409.
Further, the court assessed the parties' marital property and determined that N. Nwadigo was entitled to a monetary award in the amount of $51,243. The court did so after determining that C. Nwadigo's net worth was $462,331, that N. Nwadigo's net worth was $451,197, and concluding that:
Taking all of the factors above into consideration, the Court believes it is equitable that [N. Nwadigo] is entitled to 55% of the marital property, and [C. Nwadigo] 45%. To compute the number, the Court adds each party's net worth, the sum of which is $913,528.00. Fifty-five percent of that figure is $502,440.00. By subtracting [N. Nwadigo's] net worth of $451,197.00 from that sum, it is appropriate to order payment of Monetary Award in the amount of $51,243.00, payable within 90 days from [C. Nwadigo] to [N. Nwadigo].
The court declined C. Nwadigo's request for attorney's fees, explaining that "most of the pleadings filed in the case were generated by pro se litigants who frequently were unaware of Court rules of procedure[,]" and also declined both parties' requests for a child support credit:
The Court heard the testimony from the parties regarding their respective claims for overpayment/underpayment of child support. The Court is unable to explain the difference in their respective calculations, and for that reason will deny the relief each party seeks. Much of the debate centers on whether [C. Nwadigo] is entitled to a refund for daycare that apparently did not occur, but was required to be prepaid by [N. Nwadigo], lest she lose her daughter's slot in the daycare center. This is an unfortunate fact of life for parents who have their children in sought-after daycare centers, often with a waiting list of parents, and assuming these prepayments were made, the Court will not penalize [N. Nwadigo] for trying to [e]nsure that her child had a spot at the daycare center.
Lastly, the parties had a total of four separate Maryland 529 college savings plans for the children-each party held a separate account for each child. The record reflects that the accounts held by N. Nwadigo had significantly more value than the accounts held by C. Nwadigo, and C. Nwadigo made a request at trial "for the accounts to be balanced[.]" The court found that those accounts were not marital property and declined the request to transfer funds between the accounts.
C. Nwadigo timely filed this appeal.
This Court has stated that it "will not disturb the trial court's discretionary determination as to an appropriate award of child support absent legal error or abuse of discretion." Smith v. Freeman, 149 Md.App. 1, 20 (2002). Further, the "decision regarding whether to grant a monetary award, and the amount of such an award, is subject to review for abuse of discretion." Flanagan v. Flanagan, 181 Md.App. 492, 521 (2008). Similarly, "[w]e review an award of attorney's fees in family law cases under an abuse of discretion standard." Sang Ho Na v. Gillespie, 234 Md.App. 742, 756 (2017).
The abuse of discretion standard of review "asks whether the decision is off the center mark and beyond the fringe of what is deemed minimally acceptable." In re Dany G., 223 Md.App. 707, 720 (2015). A decision under that standard will not be disturbed unless there is "a clear showing of abuse of discretion, that is, discretion manifestly unreasonable, or exercised on untenable grounds, or for untenable reasons." Jenkins v. City of Coll. Park, 379 Md. 142, 165 (2003) (citing Goodman v. Com. Credit Corp., 364 Md. 483, 491-92 (2001) (quotation marks and internal citations omitted)). "Of course, the court's discretion is always tempered by the requirement that the court correctly apply the law applicable to the case." Arrington v. State, 411 Md. 524, 552 (2009). Further, "[a] court can abuse its discretion when it makes a decision based on an incorrect legal premise or upon factual conclusions that are clearly erroneous." Guidash v. Tome, 211 Md.App. 725, 735 (2013).
C. Nwadigo contends that his child support obligation was "calculated by applying an erroneous percentage of time with each parent of 74.8%: 25.2%[,]" instead of "the actual values of 67.7%: 32.3%, as contained in the Visitation Order[,]" adding that, "[t]his resulted in an ordered overpayment of about $500 per month[.]" N. Nwadigo does not respond to C. Nwadigo's assertion regarding the court's calculation of the parties' percentages of time with the children, but asserts that the child support determination should be affirmed.
In Maryland, if the parties' combined monthly income is $30,000 or less, the court must follow the child support guidelines, enumerated in Md. Code Ann., Family Law ("FL") sections 12-201 - 204, in awarding child support. Kpetigo v. Kpetigo, 238 Md.App. 561, 583 (2018). A "schedule of basic child support obligations" based upon the parties' combined income is set forth in FL section 12-204(e). In cases of shared physical custody,[2]the child support obligation provided in the schedule is "divided between the parents in proportion to their respective adjusted actual incomes." FL § 12-204(m)(1). Each parent's share is then "multiplied by the percentage of time the child or children spend with the other parent[.]" FL § 12-204(m)(2)(i).
Here, the court's child support guidelines worksheet calculates C. Nwadigo's child support obligation to include 92 overnights per year with the children. However, the court's visitation schedule provides C. Nwadigo with well over 92 overnights per year. Specifically, the court ordered that C. Nwadigo would have custody of the children as follows:
Accordingly the weekend schedule alone awards C. Nwadigo 118 overnights per year-well over the 92 computed in the court's child support calculation.[3] Neither the court's order of divorce, corresponding memorandum opinion, nor the transcript provide any explanation for the discrepancy between these numbers. There is no indication that the court intended to reduce C. Nwadigo's visitation with the children, which was previously set at 104 overnights per year. Indeed, the court described its visitation schedule as "largely consistent with [the parties'] present...
To continue reading
Request your trial