Source: http://www.scribd.com/doc/217257247/Goldberg-v-Miller-371-Md-591-810-a-2d-947
Timestamp: 2015-08-31 08:26:20
Document Index: 616833784

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1', '§ 581', '§12', '§12', '§ 12', '§ 523', '§ 1']

P. 1Goldberg v. Miller 371 Md. 591, 810 a.2d 947Goldberg v. Miller 371 Md. 591, 810 a.2d 947Ratings: (0)|Views: 1|Likes: 0Published by Thalia Sanders371 Md. 591, 810 A.2d 947371 Md. 591, 810 A.2d 947More info:Categories:Types, Business/Law, Court FilingsPublished by: Thalia Sanders on Apr 09, 2014Copyright:Traditional Copyright: All rights reservedAvailability:Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate content|Add to collectionSee moreSee lesshttps://www.scribd.com/doc/217257247/Goldberg-v-Miller-371-Md-591-810-a-2d-94704/09/2014pdftextoriginal Westlaw Delivery Summary Report for PATRON ACCESS,-
Date/Time of Request: Tuesday, August 24, 2010 13:30 EasternClient Identifier: PATRON ACCESSDatabase: MD-CSCitation Text: 810 A.2d 947Lines: 790Documents: 1Images: 0
business law 2 sta-rite legal history how to cite a case
Court of Appeals of Maryland.David S. GOLDBERGv.Robert Martin MILLER.
No. 8, Sept. Term 2002.
Nov. 8, 2002.Guardian ad litem filed petition for allowance of counsel fees, arising from marriage dissolution ac-tion between husband and wife. The Circuit Court,Montgomery County, William P. Turner, J., granted
petition. Husband appealed. The Court of SpecialAppeals, 142 Md.App. 239, 788 A.2d 717, reversed
in part. On grant of guardian ad litem's petition forwrit of certiorari, the Court of Appeals, Battaglia,
J., held, as a matter of first impression, that trialcourt did not possess authority to treat guardian adlitem fees as child support.Affirmed.West Headnotes
[1] Child Support 76E 442
76E Child Support76EIX Enforcement76Ek442 k. Garnishment and Wage Execu-
tion. Most Cited CasesTrial court lacked authority to treat guardian adlitem fees imposed in divorce proceeding as “childsupport,” so that fees could be collected throughgarnishment of federal retirement annuity; while or-der awarding fees qualified as a legal process andorder made it clear that award for guardian ad litemfees was to be included as child support, as was re-quired by regulation, treatment of guardian ad litemfees as child support was inconsistent with statelaw. West's Ann.Md.Code, Family Law, § 1-202; 5
C.F.R. §§ 581.102(f), 581.307.
[2] Child Support 76E 605
76E Child Support76EXIII Costs76Ek605 k. Professionals. Most Cited Cases
General Assembly did not intend that guardian adlitem fees be deemed part of child support; Legis-lature elected not to include guardian ad litem feesunder its scheme for identifying child support, andsuch treatment inappropriately could subject debtorto possible imprisonment through contempt pro-ceedings and could affect adversely best interest of children by attorney fees displacing other more dir-ect expenses. West's Ann.Md.Code, Family Law, §12-103(a).
[3] Statutes 361 195
361 Statutes361VI Construction and Operation361VI(A) General Rules of Construction
361k187 Meaning of Language361k195 k. Express Mention and Im-
plied Exclusion. Most Cited CasesAlthough the maxim of statutory construction ex-pressio unis est exclusio alteris is a useful interpret-ive device, it should be used with caution and notas a rule of law.
[4] Child Support 76E 23
76E Child Support76EII Duty to Support in General76Ek22 Obligation of Parents
76Ek23 k. In General. Most Cited Cases
Parents' obligation to support their minor childrenimposes a duty on the parent to provide support andconfers a right on children to receive it.
[5] Child Support 76E 444
76E Child Support76EIX Enforcement76Ek443 Contempt
76Ek444 k. In General. Most Cited CasesA court may employ its contempt powers, includingthe power to imprison, against one who refuses to810 A.2d 947 Page 1371 Md. 591, 810 A.2d 947
(Cite as: 371 Md. 591, 810 A.2d 947)
comply with an order to pay child support. Md.Rule15-207(e).
[6] Child Support 76E 140(1)
76E Child Support76EIV Amount and Incidents of Award76Ek140 In General
76Ek140(1) k. In General. Most Cited
CasesBecause an obligation to pay child support createsan enforceable duty of the parent, a trial court maynot select, at its complete discretion, which of itsorders should be deemed child support; instead, thetrial court must adhere to the Legislature's plan forcalculating the amount and character of a child sup-port award.
[7] Child Support 76E 146
76E Child Support76EIV Amount and Incidents of Award76Ek146 k. Construction, Operation, and Ef-
fect of Guidelines. Most Cited CasesChild Support Guidelines provide courts with uni-form criteria that they must consider in awardingchild support and the enumerated criteria consist of calculations to be used in computing the amountone party owes to another in child support.
[8] Child Support 76E 158
76E Child Support76EIV Amount and Incidents of Award76Ek154 Insurance
76Ek158 k. Insurance on Child. Most
Cited CasesLike the enumerated factors under the Child Sup-port Guidelines, an order to include a child in a par-ent's health insurance coverage may be treated aschild support. West's Ann.Md.Code, Family Law, §12-102(b).
[9] Child Support 76E 113
76E Child Support76EIII Factors Considered76EIII(C) Factors Relating to Child
76Ek112 Medical Expenses76Ek113 k. In General. Most Cited
CasesAn award of expenses related to medical supportfor the child, including neonatal expenses, may betreated as an award for child support. West'sAnn.Md.Code, Family Law, § 12-101(d)(1)(ii).
[10] Judgment 228 829(3)
228 Judgment228XVII Foreign Judgments228k829 Effect of Judgments of United
States Courts in State Courts228k829(3) k. Operation and Effect. Most
Cited CasesBankruptcy court's determination that, for purposesof bankruptcy law, guardian ad litem fees were “inthe nature of child support” and, therefore, not dis-chargeable debts was not determinative of issue of whether guardian ad litem fees were to be treated aschild support under Maryland law. Bankr.Code, 11U.S.C.A. § 523(a)(5).
**948*594
Glenn M. Cooper, Bethesda (David S.
Goldberg, Gaithersburg, on brief), for petitioner.Cynthia E. Young, Annapolis, for respondent.BELL, C.J. and ELDRIDGE, RAKER
FN*, WIL-NER, CATHELL, HARRELL and BATTAGLIA,
JJ.FN* Judge Raker participated in the oral
argument but did not participate in the de-cision or the adoption of this Opinion.
BATTAGLIA, J.The petitioner in this case, David S. Goldberg, Es-quire, (“Goldberg”), seeks review of the judgmentof the Court of Special Appeals and asks this Courtto determine whether guardian
fees im-posed pursuant to Maryland Code § 1-202 of the
810 A.2d 947 Page 2371 Md. 591, 810 A.2d 947
More From This User1-Complaint6 Ceridian HCM vs Chumash IndiansThalia SandersJackson Cert Opp Brief WesternSkyFinancial v. D.jacksonThalia SandersJackson Cert Opp Brief WesternSkyFinancial v. D.jacksonThalia SandersWestern Sky Cert Stage ReplyThalia SandersGoodman v. Waukey Et Al.Thalia SandersMapp v. Ohio 367 U.S. 643, 81 S.Ct. 1684Thalia SandersWolf v. People State Colo 388 U.S. 25- 69 S.ct.1359Thalia SandersEdward v. SouthCarolinaThalia SandersGideon v. Wainwwright 372 U.S. 335, 83 S.ct. 792Thalia SandersWashington v. Texas 388 U.S. 14-87 S.ct. 1920Thalia SandersGoldberg v. Miller 371 Md. 591, 810 a.2d 947Thalia Sanders837 So.2d 988Thalia SandersBell at Corp v. Twombly 550 U.S. 544, 127 S.ct. 1955Thalia SandersAshcroft v. Iqubal 129 S.ct. 1937Thalia SandersIbarra v. US 120 F.3d 472Thalia SandersJames Et Al v. Freder Cty Pub Sch. 441 F.supp.2d 755Thalia SandersRafferty v. PGC 423 F.supp. 1045Thalia SandersNew York Life Ins. Co. v. Brown, 84 f .3d 137 141Thalia SandersPalsgraf v. Long Island Railroad 222 App. Div. 166Thalia SandersPlaintiffs ResponsetoMotiontoIntervene11 Vann.docThalia SandersMarvin vs Marvin 18cal.3d660Thalia SandersPalsgraf v. Long Island RR Co. 248 N.Y. 339Thalia Sanders1989-6-20 Dc Lashawn Complaint (1)Thalia SandersLaShawn a. v. Gray Progress Report November 21 2011 (1)Thalia Sanders