Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

251 Md. 735

248 A.2d 875

McCally v. McCally

Court of Appeals of Maryland

Decided January 9, 1969

Court of Appeals of Maryland · decided 1969-01-09

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“In all cases where a person makes an application for a decree or modification of a decree with respect to the custody, the amount of support or visitation rights concerning a child or children of the parties, or files any form of proceeding to recover arrearages of child support or otherwise to enforce such decree, the court, after considering the financial status of both parties, their respective needs and whether there was substantial justification for instituting or defending the proceeding, may make such award of costs and counsel fees to either party as shall be just and proper under all the circumstances.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 238 Md. App. 281 - Poole v. Bureau of Support Enforcement Ex Rel. Roebuck

“power to award a fee at any time in child custody and support cases.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 242 Md. App. 1 - David A. v. Karen S.

Relies on Carter v. Carter · Andrews v. Andrews · Price v. Price

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1969-01-09

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently July 2019

7 state decisions

40196919701980199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Per Curiam :

¶1 A divorced mother who had continued her illicit relations with her paramour, a married man who frequently spends nights in her apartment if he does not live there altogether, petitioned the equity court to change the custody of her children from their father to her and to require the father to pay her support for the children and expenses for psychiatric treatment of one child. The proof was that that child was normal and well adjusted.

¶2 The trial judge denied the change of custody but allowed the wife’s lawyer a fee, without stating his reasons for so doing.

¶3 The father appeals from the granting of the fee. We find his appeal to be well taken. An absolute divorce ends the marital relationship and a divorced wife is not entitled to a fee for her counsel from her former husband unless counsel’s services were reasonable and necessary for the welfare of the children. Carter v. Carter, 156 Md. 500, 508-509; Andrews v. Andrews, 242 Md. 143, 155-156. There was no indication here of the factors requisite to impose liability on the father.

¶4 ■ Chapter 488 of the Daws of 1967 (Sec. 5A of Art. 16 of the Code) gave the equity court power to award a fee at any time *737 in child custody and support cases, as Price v. Price, 232 Md. 379 suggested the Legislature well might want to do, but it also provides that in deciding whether to award a fee the court should consider “whether there was substantial justification for instituting or defending the proceeding” which in effect makes the statutory test on this point the test of the cases such as Carter and Andrews, cited above.

¶5 Decree appealed from reversed, with costs.

/251/md/735 · .json · Public domain