Stoltz v. Clark
Decision Date | 27 October 2021 |
Docket Number | 285-2021 |
Parties | ANGELA C. STOLTZ v. CHARLES C. CLARK, IV |
Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Circuit Court for Queen Anne's County Case No C-17-FM-17-000186
Arthur, Leahy, Eyler, Deborah S. (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ.
The parties to this appeal are the parents of two children. In 2018, the Circuit Court for Queen Anne's County granted the mother primary physical custody of the older child and granted the father primary physical custody of the younger child. A year later, the parties agreed to a consent order under which the mother received primary physical custody of both children.
After the change in custody, the mother moved for modification of child support. Although the court ruled in the father's favor on several motions concerning his discovery obligations, the mother uncovered evidence that the father is the beneficiary of a trust. Under the trust agreement, he is entitled to 25% of the annual earnings from a limited liability company, but he is prohibited from receiving those earnings until 2022. The circuit court determined that these earnings should not be counted as income for the purpose of determining the father's child support obligations in 2019 and 2020.
The mother has appealed, challenging the rulings that limited discovery and the circuit court's determination of the father's income. For the reasons explained in this opinion, we conclude that the circuit court abused its discretion in striking discovery requests made by the mother. In light of this error, we shall vacate the order establishing the father's child support obligations and remand this case for a new hearing.[1] Factual and Procedural Background
Angela Stoltz and Charles Clark IV are the parents of two daughters: L., born in August 2002, and E., born in February 2004. Ms. Stolz and Mr. Clark are not married to one another. They have lived separately since 2005.
Around the time of their separation, both parents raised competing custody claims in the Family Court of the State of Delaware. In 2008, the Delaware court ordered that both children should reside primarily with Ms. Stoltz during the school year and primarily with Mr. Clark during the summer. The Delaware court ordered Mr. Clark to pay child support in the amount of $1, 786 per month.
Three years later, Ms. Stoltz relocated from Delaware to Maryland. Although Mr. Clark requested a modification of custody at that time, the Delaware court ordered that the children should continue to reside primarily with Ms. Stoltz during the school year.
In 2016, Ms. Stoltz requested a recalculation of child support based on the passage of time since the previous child support determination. The Delaware court increased Mr. Clark's child support obligation to $2, 236 per month.
Mr. Clark again asked the Delaware court to change custody in 2017. In response, Ms. Stoltz initiated new proceedings in the Circuit Court for Queen Anne's County. The Delaware court declined to exercise jurisdiction over Mr. Clark's custody claim, concluding that Maryland was the more appropriate forum. Mr. Clark then filed a counter-motion in the circuit court, seeking primary physical custody of both children, as well as a modification of child support.
In May of 2018, the circuit court held a hearing on the competing claims for modification of custody and child support. Both parties presented evidence about their respective incomes and home environments. Ms. Stoltz testified that her only source of income is her salary as a professor at the University of Maryland.
In his testimony, Mr. Clark explained that he manages a residential community known as Riverdale Park in Millsboro, Delaware. Tenants at Riverdale Park pay ground rents for the right to occupy the land. Most of the lots are owned by Riverdale Park, LLC, a company established by Mr. Clark's parents. Mr. Clark personally owns several dozen lots, which he inherited from his grandfather.
Mr. Clark identified three forms of income: stock dividends of around $1, 500 per year; salary of $52, 000 per year as the property manager of Riverdale Park, LLC; and rental income from lots that he personally owns, with gross receipts of around $125, 000 per year before deducting expenses. He introduced his 2017 federal income tax return, on which he reported adjusted gross income of $161, 206.[2]
On July 5, 2018, the circuit court awarded sole legal custody and primary physical custody of L. (then 15 years old) to Ms. Stoltz and awarded sole legal custody and primary physical custody of E. (then 14 years old) to Mr. Clark. Under the modified custody arrangement, L. would reside primarily with Ms. Stoltz in Maryland during the school year, while E. would reside primarily with Mr. Clark in Delaware during the school year. Ms. Stoltz appealed, and this Court affirmed the modification of custody. Angela C. Stoltz v. Charles C. Clark IV, No. 2156, Sept. Term 2018 (filed May 31, 2019) (unreported).
The circuit court resolved the issue of child support in a separate order dated August 30, 2018. The court found Ms. Stoltz's income to be $4, 167 per month (or $50, 004 per year). The court found Mr. Clark's income to be $13, 434 per month (or $161, 208 per year), as reported on his 2017 income tax return. After finding that the parties' combined monthly income exceeded the highest amount set forth in the schedule of basic support obligations, the court extrapolated from the schedule to determine each parent's child support obligation. The court ordered Mr. Clark to pay $1, 201 per month to Ms. Stoltz, representing the difference between his monthly obligation for support of L. and Ms. Stoltz's monthly obligation for the support of E.
The custody arrangement established by the circuit court, under which each parent had primary physical custody of one child, ended within one year. In August 2019, E. returned to the care of Ms. Stoltz throughout the year. Through a consent order entered on September 10, 2019, the parties agreed that Ms. Stoltz would have sole legal custody and primary physical custody of both children. The consent order included no specific visitation provisions for Mr. Clark.
The proceedings at issue in the present appeal began one month after the entry of the consent order, on October 7, 2019, when Ms. Stoltz filed a motion to modify child support. Although different attorneys had represented her throughout the earlier litigation, she filed and pursued this motion without representation.
In her motion, Ms. Stoltz explained that the court had made its previous child support determination when each parent had primary physical custody of one child. She requested a modification of child support on the ground that, under the consent order, she now had primary physical custody of both children.
Generally, in cases where a party seeks modification of child support, each party must file a current financial statement. See Md. Rule 9-202(f). Although the court previously found that the parents' total income exceeded the highest amount set forth in the child support guidelines, neither party submitted the "long-form" financial statement required by Md. Rule 9-203(a). Ms. Stoltz stated that her income had increased to $5, 594.16 per month (or $67, 129.92 per year). Mr. Clark stated that his income was $13, 433.88 per month (or $161, 206.56 per year), almost exactly the same amount that the court had used in the previous child support determination. Because Mr. Clark did not submit the long-form financial statement, his financial statement did not include disclosures about his assets and liabilities.
On December 30, 2019, Ms. Stoltz served written interrogatories and requests for production of documents upon Mr. Clark. Generally, these discovery requests sought information about Mr. Clark's income from all sources and documents verifying his income.
On January 14, 2020, the parties appeared for a scheduling conference before a family magistrate. The magistrate recommended the date of February 13, 2020, as the deadline for the completion of discovery. The circuit court adopted that recommendation in a scheduling order issued in accordance with Md. Rule 2-504. The order stated:
2/13/2020 Date by which Discovery must be completed. Interrogatories, notices, requests, responses and all other "discovery materials" referred to in Rule 2-401(d) must be served sufficiently before that date to provide the periods for notice, response or objection prescribed by the Rules.
On February 4, 2020, Mr. Clark's attorney served answers to Ms. Stoltz's interrogatories. On the following day, Mr. Clark's attorney served responses to her requests for production of documents.[3] Along with these responses, Mr. Clark produced copies of various bank account statements and credit card statements, as well as his 2017 federal income tax return. These responses spawned a protracted dispute over Mr. Clark's disclosure obligations.
One of Ms. Stoltz's interrogatories had asked for certain information about any business entity in which Mr. Clark owned an interest. In response, Mr. Clark stated: "I am the property manager for Riverdale Park, LLC." Mr. Clark disclosed that his brother, his two sisters, and his nephew each "have an interest in Riverdale Park, LLC." He provided the names of those family members, but he gave no additional information other than the following statement: "I do not fully understand their specific or technical positions in [the] LLC, other than that my brother . . . is a co-Manager."
In another interrogatory, Ms. Stoltz had asked...
To continue reading
Request your trial