323 A.3d 499
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2024Background
- Jennifer Adelakun (Mother) and Adeniyi Adelakun (Father) are undergoing divorce proceedings with three children involved.
- Mother filed for divorce requesting pendente lite (temporary) alimony and child support, claiming unemployment and lack of income.
- Father counterclaimed, seeking custody and arguing mother was employable and capable of contributing financially.
- After a hearing, the magistrate denied Mother’s requests for pendente lite support, citing credibility issues with her financial disclosures and finding both parties able to support themselves and the children.
- The Circuit Court adopted the magistrate’s report, reaffirming the denial of pendente lite alimony and child support.
- Mother appealed, arguing the denial itself is appealable as an interlocutory order for the payment of money or, alternatively, seeking appellate court intervention to designate the order as final.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is an interlocutory order denying pendente lite alimony and child support appealable under Md. Code § 12-303(3)(v)? | Mother: Denying pendente lite support is appealable as an order regarding the payment of money; statute should cover both granting and denying requests. | Father: Only orders affirmatively requiring payment of money are appealable; denials are not. | Not appealable—statute allows appeals only from orders requiring payment, not denials. |
| Should the appellate court designate the order as a final judgment under Maryland Rule 8-602(g)? | Mother: The court should certify this as a final order due to separated and distinct claims and alleged delay/prejudice. | Father: Doing so would improperly circumvent rules against piecemeal appeals; issues stemmed from Mother's own conduct. | Declined to certify; no extraordinary circumstances, and trial court not asked to act under Rule 2-602(b). |
| Does the collateral order doctrine provide a basis for appeal? | (Raised late; suggested that appeal would be unreviewable if denied.) | Not substantively addressed. | Court declined to reach; argument was not timely raised in briefing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Anthony Plumbing of Md., Inc. v. Attorney General, 298 Md. 11 (Md. 1983) (interpreted legislative intent on interlocutory appeals for payment of money, focusing on orders for specific sum payments)
- Simmons v. Perkins, 302 Md. 232 (Md. 1985) (explained the equitable nature of orders enforceable by contempt)
- Chappell v. Chappell, 86 Md. 532 (Md. 1898) (early case on interlocutory appeals in support matters; discussed by parties)
- Pappas v. Pappas, 287 Md. 455 (Md. 1980) (considered scope of appeals under statute in support context)
- Frey v. Frey, 298 Md. 552 (Md. 1984) (addressed appealability of pendente lite alimony orders)
- Waterkeeper All., Inc. v. Md. Dep’t of Agric., 439 Md. 262 (Md. 2014) (final judgment requirements and appellate procedure)