Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 97 Md. App. 347 - Choate v. Choate

97 Md. App. 347 - Choate v. Choate’s Empirical Analysis

1993

Citation profile

26
cited by 26 later decisions
1
states following
October 2014
most recently cited

24 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently October 2014 · most notably 147 Md. App. 350 - Turner v. Turner (2002), Jeffcoat v. Jeffcoat (1994)

24 state decisions

140199320002010decided

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.

Relationships

Relies on Washington Homes, Inc. v. Interstate Land Development Co. · Harper v. Harper · Grant v. Zich · 58 Md. App. 158 - Gravenstine v. Gravenstine · 86 Md. App. 598 - Rock v. Rock

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

  1. “[a]s a general rule, property disposed of before trial cannot be marital property. Gravenstine v. Gravenstine, 58 Md.App. 158, 177 , 472 A.2d 1001 (1984). An exception to this rule is where one spouse claims that the property was improperly dissipated by the other spouse. See Rock v. Rock, 86 Md.App. 598, 618-20 , 587 A.2d 1133 (1991). Once improper dissipation is alleged, the burden shifts to the spouse claiming that dissipation occurred to prove that the other spouse used the marital property during the marriage to prevent inclusion of the assets for any consideration of a monetary award.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “marital property which generates a monetary award must ordinarily exist as “marital property” as of the date of the final decree of divorce based on evidence adduced at the trial on the merits or a continuation thereof. Therefore, property disposed of before commencement of the trial under most circumstances cannot be marital property. Although, “marital property” is defined as “all property, however titled, acquired by either or both spouses during their marriage ...the legislative scheme of the 1978 Marital Property Act contemplates determination of marital property at the time marriage is dissolved, i.e., when the absolute divorce is granted.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “She may find it absurd, but it is precisely the result mandated by the law. That was the law before the Property Disposition Act and it is the law now. With very few exceptions, under [FL section 8-205(a)], the court may not transfer the interest in property from one spouse to the other. The court may only make an adjustment in the form of a monetary award and then only out of marital property. The home could not have become marital property because marital property does not include property “directly traceable” to property acquired before the marriage. Hence, the absurdity that Mrs. Choate perceives reflects the statutory law.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.