Burak v. Burak
150 A.3d 360
| Md. Ct. Spec. App. | 2016Background
- Husband and Wife purchased a marital home in 2011 using $131,000 provided by Husband’s parents (the Grandparents); a “Gift Letter” for the mortgage stated no repayment expected, but Grandparents testified there were oral conditions tied to the money.
- The family environment involved polyamorous relationships and drug use; the Grandparents provided substantial childcare from Child’s infancy and often handled medical, school, and recreational needs.
- Parties separated in May 2013; Wife retained physical custody initially; the Grandparents intervened and later sought custody, alleging parental unfitness and extraordinary circumstances.
- After a five-day custody hearing, the circuit court awarded sole legal and physical custody of the child to the Grandparents, finding both parents unfit and exceptional circumstances existed; interim orders limited Wife’s visitation.
- The Grandparents also sought (and the court later ordered) child support from both parents; the circuit court allowed the Grandparents to intervene in the property distribution phase and awarded them the first $131,000 from sale proceeds as a conditional gift recovery.
- Wife appealed multiple rulings; the Court of Special Appeals affirmed custody and child support, reversed the property-distribution award to the Grandparents, and dismissed one issue for lack of transcript.
Issues
| Issue | Wife’s Argument | Grandparents/Husband’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Custody award to grandparents / due process / continuance | Trial judge violated Wife’s constitutional parental rights and abused discretion by denying a continuance and by improperly limiting visitation | Grandparents argued exceptional circumstances and parental unfitness rebutted parental presumption; intervention timely | Affirmed — Court found sufficient evidence of parental unfitness and exceptional circumstances; no abuse of discretion or constitutional violation |
| 2. Alleged mishandling of expert testimony at follow-up hearing | Wife claims judge took unsworn testimony from an expert without cross-examination | Grandparents noted no reversible error; transcript absent | Dismissed (as to this claim) — Wife failed to provide transcript for appellate review |
| 3. Intervention by Grandparents in property-distribution to claim $131,000 | Wife: Grandparents shouldn’t be allowed to intervene in divorce property distribution and jury rights/notice/discovery were implicated | Grandparents: their conditional loan/gift claim related to house proceeds and was intertwined with divorce issues; judicial economy favored adjudication here | Reversed — Court held third parties like unsecured creditors may not be adjudicated in divorce property division; Grandparents’ claim must be pursued outside the divorce proceeding |
| 4. Reimbursement for mortgage/maintenance (Crawford credits) | Wife sought offset for payments she made; challenged award to Husband | Husband sought contribution for mortgage payments he made post-separation to prevent foreclosure | Affirmed — Trial court acted within discretion in awarding contribution to Husband for carrying charges he paid after separation |
| 5. Child support payable to Grandparents | Wife argued award excessive, improperly failed to account for grandparents’ wealth, and was procedurally flawed | Grandparents relied on parents’ statutory obligation to support child and applied Maryland Child Support Guidelines | Affirmed — Guidelines apply when a third party has custody; parents remain financially responsible; no abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Yve S., 373 Md. 551 (2003) (standards of review and deference in custody appeals)
- Taylor v. Taylor, 306 Md. 290 (1986) (best‑interest standard is paramount in custody decisions)
- Ross v. Hoffman, 280 Md. 172 (1977) (best‑interest standard and factors for custody)
- McDermott v. Dougherty, 385 Md. 320 (2005) (third‑party custody; burden to show exceptional circumstances)
- Crawford v. Crawford, 293 Md. 307 (1982) (contribution/Crawford credits for carrying charges post‑separation)
- In re Katherine C., 390 Md. 554 (2006) (parental statutory duty to support child and applicability of child support guidelines)