Sami v. Sami
Decision Date | 01 December 1975 |
Docket Number | 1006 and 1099,Nos. 918,s. 918 |
Parties | Helen Adams SAMI v. Mohammad SAMI. |
Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Jackson Brodsky, Rockville, for appellant.
Allen J. Kruger, Washington, D.C., for appellee.
Argued before POWERS, LOWE and MASON, JJ.
We deal here with three separate appeals, consolidated in this Court for briefs and argument, all arising from decrees or orders entered in a single equity case in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County. The case there was initiated by Helen Adams Sami, the appellant here, against her husband, Mohammad Sami, the appellee.
The contentions on appeal involve principally the divorce and child custody granted to Mr. Sami on his counter complaint, but relate as well to other orders entered before and after the decree.
A review of the voluminous record in this case reveals an almost incredible history of marital warfare, with skirmishes occurring up and down the eastern seaboard of this country, as well as abroad. The parties have engaged in litigation in the courts of Maryland and Florida. A comprehensive recital of facts is not necessary, but we shall refer to such of the facts as are relevant to the conclusions we reach on the issues we find it necessary to decide.
Mr. Sami, a citizen of Afghanistan, was employed by an international organization. The parties were married in Philadelphia in 1965, and lived with their two children, in Montgomery County. A complaint for divorce and other relief, filed by Mr. Sami in September 1973, was dropped by agreement in November, with a recital that the parties had become reconciled.
In early December 1973 Mr. Sami told his wife that he wished to take the children to New York for a few days for Christmas shopping. About a week later Mrs. Sami learned that her husband had departed from New York with the children, headed for Afghanistan. She and her brother intercepted the party at Beirut, Lebanon. The children were taken to Florida, and it appears from the record that they have lived there with their mother ever since that time.
The present case began with a bill of complaint filed by Mrs. Sami in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County on 4 January 1974. She prayed for a limited divorce, custody of the children, child support, alimony, and counsel fees and costs. By an amendment, she alleged that there were disputes over the ownership of personal property, and prayed that the court make a proper disposition of the personal property. Mr. Sami countered with a complaint asking for a divorce, custody of the children, and other relief.
Among the numerous pleadings, amended pleadings, motions, petitions, orders, and other preliminaries to trial was an assertion by Mrs. Sami of a decree of a Florida court granting custody of the children to her. Also in the record is an order finding Mrs. Sami in contempt of the Circuit Court for Montgomery County for failing to obey an order that she have the children present in that court for a hearing on custody pendente lite.
Before the trial on the merits began, on 24 September 1974, Mrs. Sami withdrew, with leave of court, all of her prayers except those relating to child custody, and for general relief. The entire record of the Florida custody proceeding, which we shall describe in more detail later, was received in evidence. In his subsequent opinion the chancellor referred to the issue thus raised, as follows:
Mr. Sami testified at the trial, and offered evidence through numerous other witnesses. We need say only that the evidence abundantly supported the chancellor's findings that Mrs. Sami had committed adultery, and, with one exception which we shall discuss later, that the best interest and welfare of the children would be served by having their custody placed with their father.
At the close of the testimony counsel for Mrs. Sami represented to the court that a witness who had worked as a maid for Mr. Sami, and had lived in the home, was available to give testimony which would show that on several occasions in 1974 Mr. Sami had committed adultery. At the request of counsel the chancellor called the witness. Flor Easterlin, as the court's witness. She was examined preliminarily by the chancellor, and was cross examined by counsel for each of the parties.
In his memorandum the chancellor referred to some of the testimony of Mrs. Easterlin. With respect to its place in the case, and its effect upon his conclusions, the chancellor said:
'For the purposes of our decision we will assume, without deciding, that corroboration is necessary to establish adultery as a recriminatory bar to an absolute divorce.'
The doctrine of recrimination is well established in the law governing divorce in Maryland. An incisive discussion of the doctrine as construed and applied in this jurisdiction is reported in Courson v. Courson, 208 Md. 171, 117 A.2d 850 (1955). There, at 174, 117 A.2d at 851, the Court of Appeals said:
At 175, 117 A.2d at 852, the Court noted that the provisions and policies of the law as announced in its own cases forbid divorce 'to either of two spouses, both of whom have committed acts which constitute grounds for divorce under the statute, even though the acts are different . . .'. The Court further observed:
'In this State, too, recrimination need not be specially pleaded nor relied on, but if it appears to the chancellor that the complainant is guilty of recrimination, it is not only his right but his duty to refuse the divorce.'
Over a decade after its decision in Courson, the Court of Appeals again reviewed the viability of the doctrine of recrimination in this State, and found it to be alive and well. In Matakeiff v. Matakieff, 246 Md. 23, 226 A.2d 887 (1967), the wife sued for divorce alleging desertion by the husband. He in turn filed a cross bill charging the wife with adultery. The chancellor granted the wife a divorce a vinculo. The Court of Appeals reversed.
The Court concluded that the evidence justified the chancellor's finding the husband guilty of desertion. But the Court found itself constrained by the doctrine of recrimination from affirming the decree. At 35, 226 A.2d at 893, the Court said:
'The issue of recrimination in the case at bar is controlled by Courson v. Courson, 208 Md. 171, 117 A.2d 850 (1955), a case wherein Judge Hammond (now Chief Judge), writing the opinion for the Court, included a comprehensive analysis of the legal effect of recrimination in divorce proceedings in Maryland.'
More recently the continued applicability of the doctrine of recrimination in culpatory divorce cases was affirmed by this Court. In Zell v. Zell, 12...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Michael D.C. v. Wanda L.C.
...However, the evidence did reveal that Mr. Lester was an amateur photographer. [201 W.Va. 388] that infatuation); Sami v. Sami, 29 Md.App. 161, 347 A.2d 888, 893 (1976) (to establish adultery the circumstantial evidence must clearly establish (1) a disposition on the part of the defendant an......
-
Sami v. U.S.
...marital warfare, with skirmishes occurring up and down the eastern seaboard of this country, as well as abroad." Sami v. Sami, 29 Md.App. 161, 163-64, 347 A.2d 888, 890 (1975). I. FACTUAL For more than a year preceding the events which gave rise to this suit, plaintiff, a citizen of Afghani......
-
Superior Court v. Ricketts
...as conclusions of law, must be afforded full faith and credit in Maryland, unless and until judicially impeached."); Sami v. Sami, 29 Md.App. 161, 176, 347 A.2d 888 (1975) ("The jurisdiction of each state is determined by its own laws, subject to the Constitution and the laws of the United ......
-
Rypma v. Stehr
...v. Colburn, 45 Md.App. 313, 412 A.2d 1309 (1980); Franciscus v. Franciscus, 31 Md.App. 78, 354 A.2d 454 (1976); and Sami v. Sami, 29 Md.App. 161, 347 A.2d 888 (1975), cert. denied, 277 Md. 740 The Wakefield case is most important. The case involved a couple who desired to gain custody over ......