Pope v. Pope’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

14 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"§ 8-205. Same-Award. (a) Grant of award.—(1) Subject to the provisions of subsection (b) of this section, after the court determines which property is marital property, and the value of the marital property, the court may transfer ownership of an interest in property described in paragraph (2) of this subsection, grant a monetary award, or both, as an adjustment of the equities and rights of the parties concerning marital property, whether or not alimony is awarded. (2) The court may transfer ownership of an interest in: (i) a pension, retirement, profit sharing, or deferred compensation plan, from one party to either or both parties; and (ii) subject to the consent of any lienholders, family use personnel property, from one or both parties to either or both parties. (b) Factors in determining amount and method of payment or terms of transfer.—The court shall determine the amount and the method of payment of a monetary award, or the terms of the transfer of the interest in property described in subsection (a)(2) of this section, or both, after considering each of the following factors: (1) The contributions, monetary and nonmonetary, of each party to the well-being of the family; (2) the value of all property interest of each party; (3) The economic circumstances of each party at the time the award is to be made; (4) The circumstances that contributed to the estrangement of the parties; (5) the duration of the marriage; (6) the age of each party; (7) the physical and mental ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Conteh v. Conteh

2. ““The burden was on Debra to establish every element of a gift, and the proof must be by clear and convincing evidence. Dorsey, 302 Md. at 318 , 487 A.2d 1181 . The only evidence, other than the titling, tending to show that Debra was entitled to a half-interest in the home was her flat assertion that she and Robert ‘purchased’ the home from the father. As we see it, Debra suggests that the ‘shortcut’ in the conveyancing translated into a ‘sale’ by the father and a ‘purchase’ by Robert and her of the entire interest of the father, albeit for only half of the appraised value. Then, she avers, the father made a gift to Tommy of the $16,000 she and Robert paid the father for the home. We do not find this scenario to be persuasive in the circumstances. Furthermore, as we have seen, the conveyance to Robert and Debra as tenants by the entireties carried no presumption of a gift, either by the father to Debra or by Robert to her. It is not disputed that the father’s steadfast desire was to make a gift of the home to Robert and Tommy in equal shares. It is clear that, under the established law of this State, the father’s intent was not defeated by the manner in which the title to the home became vested in the names of Robert and Debra. We hold that an amount representative of Robert’s contribution of $16,000 was not marital property because it was acquired by Robert by gift from a third party in accord with § 8-201(e)(2)(ii) of the Act.” (Footnote omitted.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 97 Md. App. 347 - Choate v. Choate

3. “[u]nder the Maryland Act the appropriate analysis to be applied is the source of funds theory. Under that theory, when property is acquired by an expenditure of both non-marital and marital property, the property is characterized as part nonmarital and part marital. Thus, a spouse contributing nonmarital property is entitled to an interest in the property in the ratio of the nonmarital investment to the total nonmarital and marital investment in the property. The remaining property is characterized as marital property and its value is subject to equitable distribution. Thus, the spouse who contributed nonmarital funds, and the marital unit that contributed marital funds each receive a proportionate and fair return on their investment.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Dave v. Steinmuller