77 Md. App. 622 - Watson v. Watson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

34 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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(1) “Marital property” means the property, however titled, acquired by 1 or both parties during the marriage. (2) “Marital property” does not include property: (i) acquired before the marriage; (ii) acquired by inheritance or gift from a third party; (iii) excluded by valid agreement; or (iv) directly traceable to any of these sources.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 97 Md. App. 347 - Choate v. Choate · 81 Md. App. 712 - Blake v. Blake

2. ““Whether appellant made a gift of property, i.e., either co-ownership interest in the $40,000 by depositing it in a joint savings account or a fee simple estate in the realty as co-tenant by the entireties by so titling the house purchased with that $40,000, is irrelevant to our consideration. It is also irrelevant whether a party establishes the fact of such a gift by relying on a presumption or by the production of evidence sufficient to prove all the elements of gift set out in Dorsey [v. Dorsey, 302 Md. 312 , 487 A.2d 1181 (1985) ]. As a consequence of that gift, Mr. and Mrs. Watson became equal tenants in common of the realty upon the severance of their marriage, with each being legally entitled to one-half of the proceeds of any sale of the property. The making of a gift of an ownership interest or estate in the property, however, does not affect a transmutation to marital property of the partial nonmarital property status derived from the application of the ‘source of funds’ rule announced in Harper [v. Harper, 294 Md. 54 , 448 A.2d 916 (1982) ]. The master found, as a matter of fact, that $40,000 of the funds used to acquire the Bowie home was directly traceable to the money advanced to appellant by his mother. What is at issue here, therefore, is not whether appellant gave appellee a legal estate or interest in his property, but whether he also gave, surrendered, released, or waived his right, in the event of a future divorce, to claim whatever benefits the nonmarita”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 97 Md. App. 347 - Choate v. Choate · Kearns v. Kearns

3. ““Once the gift is complete, ordinarily the donee spouse has a vested interest in the property that cannot be divested. A divorce court cannot later take away the legal interest that had been given earlier, on the theory that the property remains ‘nonmarital,’ because to do so would violate § 8-202(a)(3), which expressly forbids the divorce court to ‘transfer the ownership of personal or real property from one party to the other.’ ****** “[T]he presumption of gift arising from the titling of property in both spouses so that in the event of divorce the donee spouse legally owns a one-half interest as his or her sole and separate property ‘has no application when characterizing property as nonmarital or marital under § 8-201(e) for the purpose of granting a monetary award under § 8-205(a).’ ****** “A question as to whether property is either marital or nonmarital (or partly marital and partly nonmarital, as in this case) arises only in connection with a divorce, and is of consequence only if the divorce court deems it appropriate to ‘grant a monetary award as an adjustment of the equities and rights of the parties concerning marital property____’ § 8-205(a).””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 81 Md. App. 712 - Blake v. Blake