Maryland Divorce Lawyer Blog
For many married couples, the largest single asset they possess is their marital home. When divorce arises, dealing with the marital home is often the most significant issue other than child-related matters. Even as you both navigate the divorce process, someone must pay the mortgage, property taxes, etc. Accounting for these expenses when it is time to divide assets can be crucial. To ensure you leave your marriage with a fair asset distribution, make sure you are not tackling the divorce process alone, but instead have representation from a knowledgeable Maryland divorce lawyer.
A recent divorce case from Howard County illustrates how thorny these matters can be. A husband responsible for paying the mortgage on the marital home, but did not receive something called “Crawford credits” based on those mortgage payments, took his case to the Appellate Court, but lost. Ultimately, he was unsuccessful because the law carved out several exceptions, one of which applied in his case.
To understand more fully why the court ruled against the husband, it helps to understand what Crawford credits are. These credits, which take their name from the 1982 Maryland Supreme Court case of Crawford v. Crawford, are a divorce law concept that impacts equitable distribution when a couple owns one or more pieces of real estate.
Specifically, Crawford credits may come into play if one spouse pays the mortgage, the property taxes, or other expenses on the marital home (or any other piece of co-owned real estate) after the spouses have separated. When that happens, the spouse paying those bills can ask the court for a credit, meaning they are entitled to a contribution from the non-paying spouse.
In R.M.’s circumstances, the court awarded him “exclusive use and possession” of the marital home but also made him “solely responsible for the… mortgage… and… any second mortgage or line of credit.”
Although the husband made those required payments as the court instructed, he was not entitled to any contribution from the wife. Why? According to the evidence presented in the couple’s hearing, the husband used marital funds to make all those payments, which is one of four explicit exceptions when awarding Crawford credits.
That makes sense because, in essence, the wife was already contributing to satisfying the financial obligations on the home, and awarding credits to the husband would be inequitable.
The Crawford Exceptions
As noted above, in addition to paying using marital funds, there are three other exceptions. One is called “ouster,” which occurs when one spouse is involuntarily ejected from the home. In a scenario like that, the trial court may decide that requiring a spouse who has been forced out of a house to pay for that property’s expenses would not be appropriate.
Another is an “inequitable result,” which arises when demanding contribution would yield an unfair result. (For example, hypothetically, awarding Crawford credits to a spouse who is already receiving child support and alimony might create an excessive burden on the spouse who owes the child support/alimony obligations, and might lead to a denial of Crawford credits.)
The final possibility is a contractual agreement. The law allows spouses to sign a contract that governs how they will handle their mortgage, taxes, or other property-related expenses. If the spouses signed such a prior agreement and awarding Crawford credits would thwart that contract, the court might decline to award the credits.
Ensuring a fair division of assets and debts is one of the most significant elements of many divorces. Skillful legal representation can help ensure you walk away with a fair outcome. The knowledgeable Maryland equitable distribution attorneys at Anthony A. Fatemi, LLC are here to provide you with that skillful advocacy along with sound, reliable advice. Contact us today at 301-519-2801 or via our online form to schedule your consultation.