Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Date: 07-22-2024
Case Style:
Krystal Lucado v. Peter Oetker
Case Number: C-03-FM-22-000138
Judge: Not Available
Court: Circuit Court, Baltimore County, Maryland
Plaintiff's Attorney:
Defendant's Attorney:
Description:
Baltimore, Maryland divorce lawyers represented husband and wife in a marriage dissolution action.
The parties were married on March 30, 2007, in a civil ceremony in Baltimore County. I.R. and A.X. were 15 and 13 years old respectively at the time of the merits hearing. Both Mother and Father also have adult children from previous marriages.
Soon after their marriage, the parties jointly purchased their marital residence in Monkton, Maryland. In August 2019, Mother purchased a second home in Havre de Grace, Maryland, "against [Father's] wishes[,]" as he thought they had agreed to "severely downsize." A "week or two later," Mother sent Father a separation agreement. Mother
and the children lived at the Havre de Grace house, while Father stayed at the Monkton house but visited "most weekends." This living arrangement continued for the next couple of years until September 2021, when the parties informed their children of their decision to divorce. By the end of September 2021, the parties no longer cohabitated.
On October 29, 2021, the parties signed a parenting agreement stating that it was in the best interests of the minor children for Mother to retain physical custody, with joint legal custody shared by both parents. This parenting agreement also stipulated that the children were "free to choose when they want[ed] to visit each parent" and "where they want[ed] to spend a holiday with practical and reasonable notice."
Father initiated proceedings for absolute divorce in the Circuit Court for Harford County on December 20, 2021. A month later, Mother filed a separate complaint for absolute divorce in Baltimore County, which became the operative complaint after Father dismissed the Harford County action. In her complaint, Mother alleged that she "[w]as the primary parent for all of the fourteen years in raising the minor children and her twin sons from a prior marriage, while [Father] was largely an absentee parent." She also claimed that Father began an extra-marital relationship beginning in August 2021. As grounds for divorce, Mother asserted Adultery (Count One) and Constructive Desertion (Count Two). Mother sought sole physical custody, joint legal custody, child support, permanent alimony until the businesses of Gateway Executive Suites and Gateway Executive Suites 1 were sold, equitable shares of the marital property and financial assets, and attorneys' fees.
Father filed his answer on February 11, 2022, followed by a counter-complaint for absolute divorce filed three days later. In Father's answer to the complaint, he alleged that Mother "liquidated the funds in the retirement account" that he had funded for her by putting her on the payroll of his company, and then she "unilaterally decided" to purchase a new home in Havre de Grace against his wishes. He claimed that upon moving into the new house, Mother presented him with a separation agreement that Father stated was "signed [by the parties] around the beginning of October 1, 2019, and [Mother] backdated to 2018."
Thereafter, the parties met several times to try to reach an agreement on the terms of a divorce, and Father "prepared different draft versions of documents for these settlement discussion[s]"; however, according to Father, no agreement for a settlement regarding the terms of the divorce was reached. Father claimed that the Maryland Parenting Form submitted by Mother did not "correspond to any of the forms that [Father] developed during settlement discussions," and requested that it be stricken.
Father emphasized that he had been "an active father in the lives of the minor children and stepchildren up to the separation in September/October 2019 when [Mother] unilaterally moved 50 minutes away and created circumstances that forced [Father] to work long hours on weeknights and weekends." Father requested the court deny Mother's request for relief except for ordering child support after utilizing the Guidelines.
In his counter-complaint for absolute divorce, Father requested joint physical custody and joint legal custody of his minor children. He also asked the court to facilitate "mediation to develop a parenting and custody plan based on the expected future geographic locations of [Father] and [Mother]."
The court's scheduling order, issued on April 4, 2022, set a settlement conference for September 28, 2022. On September 27 at 10:18 p.m., Mother filed a request to appear remotely at the settlement conference because she and the minor children were residing in California at the time. The settlement conference occurred on September 28, with Mother's counsel and Father present. According to Father's counsel, Mother failed to appear for the settlement conference, and the magistrate "very graciously" attempted to call Mother to hold the hearing remotely. However, Mother "never picked up the phone." The magistrate indicated during the settlement conference that Mother's motion to appear remotely "didn't even actually get ruled on." The magistrate stated that she "would have granted it[,]" but Mother was "not answering right now."[3] A partial settlement was reached, and the trial was set for February 13, 2023, to resolve the remaining issues of "custody/access, child support, [and] marital property." On October 17, 2022, Mother's counsel withdrew his appearance, and Mother filed pro se thereafter.
On January 31, 2023, Mother notified Father via email that their son had tested positive for COVID. Then, on February 6, 2023, a week before the scheduled trial, Mother filed a motion for remote proceeding or to appear remotely, stating:
My 12 year old son tested positive for C[OVID] on 1/31/23 and 2/1/23. The State of California requires that he isolate for 5 days and on the 6th day, test again before returning to school. My 14 year old daughter will also be tested tomorrow. I cannot fly on February 12th, given contact with positive COVID patient.
Father opposed the motion, arguing that Mother "failed to appear in proper person for the Settlement Conference" and contended that she "never intended to appear in person for this trial." On February 10, the parties were informed that the trial was on "standby" due to the lack of available judges. The court reset the trial to September 19, 2023.
On September 11, 2023, Mother filed a motion for remote proceeding or to appear remotely. She requested that her witnesses-her twin adult sons and the minor children- appear remotely because: "Mother cannot afford to fly the children to MD. The twin sons work in the state of MA. The minor children are in school in the state of CA." The trial court denied the motion.
Four days before the trial, Father filed a supplemental counter-complaint for absolute divorce. He stated that Mother made "scheduling visitation with the Minor Children incredibly difficult." He recounted that Mother would "invent[] excuses to cancel visitations, telling [Father] that his proposed dates do not work because the Minor Children have plans, only for [Father] to later find out, that there was never anything planned or scheduled." He explained that Mother "constantly changes her mind" regarding visitation plans, "making it incredibly difficult for [Father]" to access and visit his children. Father argued that it was not in the best interest of the children "to be away from Maryland and away from him for extended periods of time." Father claimed that Mother makes "life-changing decisions" without discussing matters with him, and Mother's behavior "has provided instability and uncertainty for the minor children." Father stated that he believed "it is in the best interest of the minor children to be in his sole legal and primary physical custody."...
Lucado v. Oetker, 1484-2023 (Md. App. Jun 28, 2024)
Outcome: "JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR BALTIMORE COUNTY VACATED; CASE REMANDED FOR PROCEEDINGS CONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION; COSTS TO BE PAID BY APPELLEE." Lucado v. Oetker, 1484-2023 (Md. App. Jun 28, 2024)
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: