Ucheomumu v. Ezekoye
| Decision Date | 15 October 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. 2234,2234 |
| Parties | ANDREW N. UCHEOMUMU v. DOROTHY O. EZEKOYE |
| Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Circuit Court for Montgomery County
Case No. 113443FL
UNREPORTED
Meredith,* Shaw Geter, Raker, Irma S. (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ.
Opinion by Meredith, J.
* Meredith, J., now retired, participated in the argument and conference of this case while an active member of the Court; after being recalled pursuant to Maryland Constitution, Article IV, Section 3A, he also participated in the decision and adoption of this Opinion.
*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.
Andrew Ucheomumu, appellant, appeals from a judgment of the Circuit Court for Montgomery County denying his motions to modify or terminate his obligation to pay rehabilitative alimony to his former wife, Dorothy Ezekoye, appellee. Appellant presented four questions for our review, which we have rephrased:1
For the following reasons, we shall affirm.
For ease of understanding, we have divided the pertinent facts and procedural history into three periods, pertaining to: (1) the alimony award; (2) Mr. Ucheomumu's first motion to modify his alimony obligation; and (3) Mr. Ucheomumu's second motion to modify or terminate his alimony obligation.
Alimony award
Andrew Ucheomumu, appellant, was born in 1960. He and Dorothy Ezekoye, appellee, married in the United States in 1992. It appears that Ms. Ezekoye did not work outside the home during the marriage, but instead cared for the five children—all now adults—who were born to them during the course of their marriage. For 20 years, Mr. Ucheomumu earned a living by engaging in international joint business ventures, but, in 2009, he graduated from law school, and he subsequently earned two L.L.M. degrees.
In August 2013, Mr. Ucheomumu filed suit for divorce, and Ms. Ezekoye subsequently filed a claim for alimony. A hearing on the complaint for absolute divorce and the claim for alimony was held before Judge Cynthia Callahan on August 18, 2014. On August 26, 2014, the court entered a judgment of absolute divorce and ordered Mr. Ucheomumu to pay rehabilitative alimony to Ms. Ezekoye in the amount of $1,200 a month for 36 months—a total of $43,200 over three years—accounting from June 1, 2014.
Mr. Ucheomumu challenged the alimony order by filing a request for en banc review. See Maryland Rule 2-551. In the statement of reasons filed in support of his en banc appeal, Mr. Ucheomumu argued that "the trial Court err[ed] in not recognizing that[,] when the defendant willfully withheld legitimately requested information, she deprived thecourt [of] the power to award her alimony." He also claimed that he had been denied due process because of the court's denial of his motion to compel discovery, and that the court erred in evaluating Ms. Ezekoye's "voluntary self-impoverishment." He further argued, inter alia, that Ms. Ezekoye had "willfully withheld legitimately requested discovery information, and then attempted to introduce a fraudulent tax returns [sic] during the trial." By order entered February 13, 2015, the en banc panel ordered that the judgment of Judge Callahan was affirmed.
First motion to modify alimony obligation
On February 6, 2015, Ms. Ezekoye filed a petition to hold Mr. Ucheomumu in contempt because he had not made a single alimony payment. (It appears that as of the date of the judgment that is the subject of the present appeal, Mr. Ucheomumu had paid a total of $40 toward his alimony obligation: a $20 payment in October 2015, and a $20 payment in December 2015.)
Despite the en banc panel's rejection of Mr. Ucheomumu's argument that Judge Callahan's order for rehabilitative alimony should be overturned because it was procured by fraud, Mr. Ucheomumu's March 24, 2015 response to the contempt petition asserted, inter alia, that he "contends the Court's judgment was prejudiced and based in part on fraud and misrepresentation (perjury) by [Ms. Ezekoye] and her attorney, and is therefore void and should not be enforced by any court," and that Ms. Ezekoye "is barred from the relief she seeks under the doctrine of unclean hands."
On the same date (March 24, 2015), Mr. Ucheomumu filed his first motion to modify alimony. He asserted that he had "no means of paying the alimony" and "has neverhad any means of paying any alimony." He asserted that he had "no money to get an office" for his "fledgling legal practice," and that he "has no home." He said that he "is under severe financial hardship."
On August 18, 2015, a hearing on the motions was held before Magistrate James Bonifant. At the conclusion of the hearing, the magistrate placed several findings on the record. He found: "There has been no significant change in [Ms. Ezekoye's] income and there was no evidence presented regarding her expenses[,] so I cannot find that there has been any material change in her expenses." But the magistrate also found: "There was no evidence produced showing a material change in [Mr. Ucheomumu's] expenses since the entry of the alimony award in 2014." With respect to income, the magistrate observed that, although Mr. Ucheomumu "argued that his health prevented him to earn currently what he earned in 2014[,] I have difficulty accepting this." The magistrate had also reviewed Mr. Ucheomumu's 2014 tax return, and commented: "[H]e has taken as business expenses many expenses which reduce his personal living expenses." The magistrate summed up his analysis: "I do not believe [Mr. Ucheomumu] has met his burden to show that there has been a material change in circumstances from the August 2014 order[,] and I do not believe that he has met his burden to show that he was incapable of paying the alimony awarded or that he never had the ability to pay." (Emphasis added.) The magistrate recommended that the court deny Mr. Ucheomumu's motion to modify alimony and grant Ms. Ezekoye's petition for contempt. The magistrate also recommended that "an alimony arrearage be established as of today, August 18, 2015, in the amount of $18,000."
By order entered November 6, 2015, the circuit court held that the petition for contempt was granted, and that Mr. Ucheomumu's motion to modify alimony was denied. The court thereafter denied Mr. Ucheomumu's motion for reconsideration and motion for new trial. On January 15, 2016, the circuit court entered a judgment in the amount of $18,000.00 in favor of Ms. Ezekoye against Mr. Ucheomumu.
In the meantime, Mr. Ucheomumu noted an appeal from the judgment denying his motion to modify alimony and holding him in contempt.
Second motion to modify/vacate alimony obligation
While his appeal of the judgment denying his first motion to modify alimony was pending, Mr. Ucheomumu filed his second motion to modify his alimony obligation on January 28, 2016. This is the motion that is the subject of the present appeal. In this motion, he alleged that there were three material changes in his circumstances: (1) he stated he was facing "crushing legal bills" that were incurred subsequent to the August 18, 2015 hearing before the magistrate; (2) he was "now paying rent in the amount of $1,750 per month"; and (3) he had experienced a "sharp drop in clients" since the August 2015 hearing due to a disciplinary action instituted against him by the Attorney Grievance Commission. By order entered April 19, 2016, the circuit court stayed action on Mr. Ucheomumu's secondmotion to modify alimony "pending the outcome of the appeal [he] has filed before the Court of Special Appeals."
With respect to the disciplinary action referred to in Mr. Ucheomumu's second motion to modify alimony, the Court of Appeals filed an opinion on December 15, 2016, explaining that Mr. Ucheomumu had "engaged in serious, wide-ranging misconduct, and violated numerous MLRPC, two Maryland Rules, and one provision of the Code of Maryland." Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Ucheomumu, 450 Md. 675, 716 (2016). The sanction imposed by the Court at that time was to "indefinitely suspend [Mr. Ucheomumu] from the practice of law in Maryland with the right to apply for reinstatement after 90 days." Id. at 717.
On April 7, 2017, Mr. Ucheomumu filed a document captioned "Motion to Schedule This Matter for Trial, Additional Grounds for Modification and Change of Address." In this motion, he reported that his appeal of the judgment denying his first motion to modify alimony had been dismissed by the Court of Special Appeals "on technicality without reaching the merit of the appeal," and therefore, he said, "this matter is now ripe for adjudication." With respect to his additional grounds for modification of alimony, he stated: "That on December 15, 2016 the Court of Appeals indefinitely suspended [Mr. Ucheomumu] from the practice of law, and [he] is now without income." He prayed for the court to "modify the alimony and vacat[e] the same."
On ...
To continue reading
Request your trial