Posted on October 14, 2010 in Divorce

On October 13, 2010 Consumer Reports.com reported that no-fault divorce has become available in all fifty states, with New York making no fault divorce part of their laws on October 12, 2010. A no-fault divorce is a divorce filing in which no fault based grounds need to be alleged, such as adultery or spousal abuse. As reported in our August 19, 2009 blog Maryland is a what is called a “hybrid state” in that a party filing for divorce may elect to proceed on fault (contested) or no-fault (uncontested) based grounds.

In Maryland, a no-fault (uncontested) divorce is based on the understanding that the marriage is irretrievably broken. Meaning, that the husband and wife mutually and voluntarily separated from one another, there is no hope or expectation of a reconciliation, and they are and have been living separate and apart without cohabitation for a period of at least one year. If the prior conditions are met, either spouse may file for a divorce once they have been separated for 365 consecutive days. If only one spouse believes that the marriage is irretrievably broken, that spouse may file for a no-fault (uncontested) divorce after the parties live separate and apart for 24 months.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on October 13, 2010 in Sex Offenses

As a Baltimore Maryland Criminal Attorney I have always found that among the most difficult types of cases to defend is the client who is wrongfully accused of a https://www.silvermanthompson.com/lawyer-attorney-1300820.html. I have blogged about this issue in the past but I am currently representing someone whose situation is a little different that most of my past cases. In most of the cases like this that I have handled, the issue was consent. There was never any question in these cases that sexual contact had occurred between the parties. The issue was did the woman consent or was she forced in some way or simply too intoxicated to validly consent?

The case that I am currently handling is even more difficult because the charges are an outright fabrication. As we all know, it is extremely difficult to prove a negative, that is, prove that something did not happen. This is precisely what we are faced with in this case because the alleged incident simply never occurred. Here are the facts:

My client is a high level executive in a large organization. He runs a division in which he supervises over 30 people. He had a secretary whose work was substandard and after months of good faith efforts to train her had failed, he decided that he had no choice but to terminate her. As in most large organizations or bureaucracies it can be very difficult to terminate a non-performing employee. The process requires months of documentation and counseling to be able to demonstrate that the person was given every chance to succeed and was treated fairly.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on October 05, 2010 in Bail

Judge Alfred Nance of the Baltimore City Circuit Court has ruled that defendants in Maryland criminal cases are entitled to be represented by an attorney at their initial appearance before a court commissioner.

Appellate Courts in Maryland have previously ruled that appearances before a court commissioner were not “critical stages in a criminal proceeding.” Although I have not read his opinion, Judge Nance wisely stayed his seemingly maverick ruling due to the likelihood the matter is far from settled and will be taken up on appeal.

It has been longstanding practice in Maryland that when a criminal defendant is arrested, they are brought before a court commissioner within twenty-four hours of the arrest. Most jurisdictions outside Baltimore City move much faster. At the brief hearing, the commissioner will set an initial bail. These hearings occur at all hours of the day. The bail is subject to review by a Maryland District Court Judge the next day.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on October 02, 2010 in Child Support

It is not uncommon for clients involved in child support modification cases to ask if their news spouses’ income will be considered in the new child support calculation. For instance, Mr. and Mrs. Smith (first wife) were divorced in 2000 and at that time Mr. Smith was ordered to pay $300 per month in child support. Since that time, Mr. Smith has remarried to Mrs. Smith (second wife) and has also started a job making significantly more money, so Mrs. Smith (first wife) files a Complaint for modification of child support. Does Mrs. Smith’s (second wife) income count as part of Mr. Smith’s income for the purpose or recalculating the child support? The answer should be no. As Moore v. Tseronis, 106 Md. App. 275, 284-85, 664 A.2d 427, 431-32 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1995) reports the court should not impute a new spouse’s income to the parent involved in the child support case when calculating child support. Further, the Annotated Code of Maryland, Family Law § 12-201(b) defines income as actual or potential income of a parent, not the parent’s new spouses income. This applies not only in modification cases, but also initial child support calculation cases. For basic information on child support calculations visit our September 9, 2009 blog.

To inquire about child support contact an experienced Maryland Divorce Attorney.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on September 30, 2010 in Child Custody

There are two parts to custody in the State of Maryland, legal custody and physical custody. Legal custody is the ability to make decisions regarding the child’s health, education, religion and other matters of significant importance. Legal custody can be awarded solely to one parent or jointly to both parents (there are also variations on joint legal custody, such as having on parent as a tie breaker or a requirement to mediate when parents cannot reach a joint decision or assigning each parent sole legal decision making with respect to different issues, ie Mom makes the decisions on education and Dad makes the decisions on religion and the parents have joint legal custody on religious issues). Maryland courts have held that the strongest factor in determining whether to award joint legal custody is the ability of the parents to communicate with each other regarding the children.

Physical custody pertains to with whom the child resides. Physical custody can be awarded primarily to one parent or it can be shared between the parents. The Maryland case Taylor v. Taylor, 306 Md. 290, 508 A.2d 964 (1986), sets forth a list of several of the factors a Court will consider for the award of shared physical custody. These considerations include:

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on September 30, 2010 in Repeat Offenders

A new list ranking U.S. cities with the the most drunk driving offenders only confirms what most experienced Baltimore criminal defense attorneys already new-Baltimore has made the list. Charm City came in at #18 on the list appearing on Insurance.com.

The list ranks the number of drivers with alcohol related convictions among the top most populous cities in the U. S. San Diego ranked No. 1, followed by San Jose, Charlotte, Phoenix and Columbus, Ohio.

The only surprising thing to me about the list is Baltimore did not rank higher. I suspect that is because either PBJs are not reported or many offenders find a way to beat the charges.

For more information on Baltimore DUI defense, contact the experienced criminal defense attorneys of Silverman, Thompson, Slutkin & White, LLC.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on September 28, 2010 in Juvenile Causes

When persons under the age of 18 are criminally charged as adults in Maryland, the defendant has the right to ask the adult court to “waive” the defendant back to juvenile court. A successful waiver hearing could be life changing to a minor defendant.

Take, for example, the recent case of white supremacist Calvin Lockner. Lockner and two minors were recently arrested in a high-profile attack of a 77 year old black fisherman named James Privott. All three men were charged as adults. My client, Emmanuel Miller 16 and the other minor defendant Zachary Watson asked a Circuit Court Judge to transfer each of their cases from adult court to juvenile court. The court was persuaded by my argument and sent Miller’s case to juvenile court. Watson, who was represented by a different attorney, did not fair so well and is being prosecuted as an adult.

The effect on each of their lives is profound. Privott, for example, has agreed to a plea bargain of 31 years. My client Miller, on the other hand, will be provided social services, vocational training and educational services up to his 21st birthday. How his life turns out beyond that is any one’s guess, but there is hope. Because of a successful juvenile waiver hearing, this young man will not be warehoused for the next 30 years of his life.

When considering whether a case should be kept in adult court or juvenile court, a Maryland Circuit Court Judge will consider 5 factors:

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on September 27, 2010 in Proof

As an experienced Maryland criminal defense attorney, friends are always asking me “how do I beat a DUI?” Ironically, this question most comes up during, you guessed it, cocktail parties. My first response is automatically “don’t drink an drive.” Of course, no one wants to hear that response and the inevitably follow-up question is “seriously, what do I do if I am pulled over?”

This is a complex question, because the question of “what do I do?” begs the question of “how much did you have to drink?”.

Assuming the answer is “allot” or “too much”, the law allows for just about any Maryland driver to beat an otherwise certain DUI, albeit at a price (which we will get into later).

When an officer pulls over a Maryland driver, the driver is required to only provide a valid driver’s license and registration. Just because a driver has been pulled over, the driver is not required to speak. Imagine a situation where a police officer pulls over a driver for speeding. The driver cracks his window and hands the officer his license and registration. The officer suspects something is up and asked the driver if he is drinking, and the driver simply nods his head “no”.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on September 27, 2010 in Scope of Employment

Often times Maryland lawyers who represent injured victims are faced with the real-world problem of collecting on an otherwise valid claim. This arises in situations where the plaintiff/ victim is injured by a person who does not have any assets or insurance. When the defendant causes the injury while working, the experienced plaintiff’s attorney will immediately look to recover (or collect) from the employer or his insurance policy. This is known as the doctrine of Respondent Superior.

Respondent Superior comes from the idea that where one of two innocent persons must suffer for the wrong of a third, it should be the one who enabled the third to do the wrong. In order to hold the employer liable for the injuries to a third person through the negligence of the employee the Plaintiff must show (1) that the employer had control or right of control over the employee; (2) that the action was within the scope of the employee’s employment; (3) the action was in furtherance of the employer’s business. It might also be necessary to show that the employer knew, or should have known of the need to control the employee.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on September 27, 2010 in Damages

To sustain an award of punitive damages in tort cases in the District of Columbia, the plaintiff must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the defendant committed a tortious act, and by clear and convincing evidence that the act was accompanied by conduct and a state of mind evincing malice or its equivalent. Jonathan Woodner Co. v. Breeden, 665 A.2d 929, 938 (D.C.1995). The Standardized Civil Jury Instructions for the District of Columbia, No. 16.01[1], provides that the jury “may award punitive damages only if the plaintiff has proved with clear and convincing evidence:

(1) that the defendant acted with evil motive, actual malice, deliberate violence or oppression, or with intent to injure, or in willful disregard for the rights of the plaintiff; and

(2) that the defendant’s conduct itself was outrageous, grossly fraudulent, or reckless toward the safety of the plaintiff.”

Croley v. Republican Nat’l Comm., 759 A.2d 682, 695 (D.C.2000) (quoting Standardized Civil Jury Instructions for the District of Columbia, No. 16-1 (1998 ed.)); see also United Mine Workers of Am., Int’l v. Moore, 717 A.2d 332, 341 (D.C.1998).

Continue Reading ››