132 A.3d 404
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2016Background
- Montgomery County Office of Child Support Enforcement obtained a $9,866.80 judgment against Byron Kelly for unpaid child support and served a writ of garnishment on Capital One, which froze two Kelly accounts totaling $2,705.05.
- Kelly moved in the circuit court to release the accounts under CJP § 11-504(b)(5), which allows a judgment debtor to exempt up to $6,000 in cash or property if timely elected.
- The Office relied on Family Law § 10-108.3(b)(1), which authorizes seizure of obligors’ bank accounts to satisfy child support arrearages and permits obligors to challenge collection based on CJP exemptions.
- After an evidentiary hearing the circuit court denied Kelly’s motion, found his testimony not credible (including that he was unemployed and that the funds were partly his mother’s), and ordered the bank to pay the Office.
- Kelly appealed, arguing the $6,000 exemption applies and challenging factual findings and alleged withheld evidence; he also sought Rule 1-341 costs for bad faith by the Office.
- The Court of Special Appeals affirmed the circuit court, holding the CJP § 11-504(b)(5) debtor exemption does not shield funds from child support collection and denying costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CJP § 11-504(b)(5) $6,000 exemption applies to child support garnishment | Kelly: As an obligor, he may elect the $6,000 exemption under CJP § 11-504(b)(5) to protect his account funds | Office: Child support collection proceeds under FL § 10-108.3 target obligors, not "debtors," so the debtor exemption does not apply | Held: Exemption in CJP § 11-504(b)(5) does not apply to child support enforcement garnishments; obligors are distinct from debtors and cannot use this exemption to evade child support collection |
| Whether funds were Kelly's or commingled with his mother's | Kelly: Funds were commingled; some or all belonged to his mother and thus not subject to levy | Office: Kelly bears burden to prove non-ownership; evidence insufficient | Held: Trial court credibility finding for Kelly was not clearly erroneous; Kelly failed to prove mother's ownership by clear and convincing evidence |
| Credibility of Kelly's unemployment testimony | Kelly: Testified he was not employed | Office: Court found testimony not credible based on record | Held: Appellate court defers to trial court credibility determinations; no clear error |
| Whether Office acted in bad faith warranting Rule 1-341 costs | Kelly: Sought costs/expenses alleging bad faith or lack of substantial justification | Office: Enforcement actions were substantially justified | Held: No basis to find bad faith; Rule 1-341 relief denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Safe Deposit & Trust Co. v. Robertson, 192 Md. 653 (1949) (distinguishes debts from familial support obligations and rejects extending spendthrift protections to support duties)
- United States v. Williams, 279 Md. 673 (1977) (military retirement pay not attachable for debt but attachable for alimony because of intra-familial support policy)
- Pope v. Pope, 283 Md. 531 (1978) (unemployment benefits protected from creditors but available for alimony due to statutory purpose protecting family support)
- Rosemann v. Salsbury, Clements, Bekman, Marder & Adkins, LLC, 412 Md. 308 (2010) (personal injury award exemption analysis; held reasoning there did not require applying personal-injury exemption to the § 11-504(b)(5) debtor-only exemption)