McGeehan v. McGeehan
167 A.3d 579
| Md. | 2017Background
- Ann and Michael McGeehan were married ~18 years; in April 2005 Michael executed three deeds transferring title in three properties (Mason Neck VA, Embassy Park DC, Farside MD) to Ann “as her sole separate and equitable estate”; deeds and related facts occurred during the marriage after Ann discovered losses to her premarital stock account.
- Embassy Park and Farside were later sold and Ann testified proceeds (~$440,000 and ~$800,000) were rolled into a 2013 purchase of a Log Jump property titled tenants by the entirety. At divorce only Log Jump and Mason Neck remained owned.
- At the divorce trial the circuit judge found the parties had a mutual agreement that the three properties would be the wife’s, but held Mason Neck (and implicitly the others) remained marital because the agreement/deeds did not expressly say the property would be “nonmarital” as required by Falise. The Court of Special Appeals affirmed.
- The Court of Appeals granted certiorari to decide whether the 2005 postnuptial transfers/deeds constituted a "valid agreement" under Md. Code, Fam. Law § 8-201(e) sufficient to exclude the properties from marital property.
- The Court held the trial court erred applying Falise’s reclassification-language requirement to these postnuptial deeds; it concluded there was a valid postnuptial agreement excluding Mason Neck (and that remand was needed to assess Log Jump tracing/contribution issues and whether Log Jump itself was excluded).
Issues
| Issue | McGeehan (Wife) argument | McGeehan (Husband) argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 2005 deeds/transfers constituted a “valid agreement” under FL § 8-201(e) excluding property from marital property | The deeds and contemporaneous conduct (new will, waiver of statutory share, exchange of title) show a valid postnuptial agreement excluding the parcels; words like “sole” and “separate” suffice | No valid agreement: deeds and oral statements lack the specific reclassification language Falise requires to exclude property from marital property | Court: Falise’s specificity rule (developed for separation agreements) does not apply to postnuptial/antenuptial/post-contracts; the record supports a valid postnuptial agreement excluding Mason Neck; remand to assess Log Jump tracing and possible exclusion |
| Whether proceeds from sales of deeds-turned-sole-property, rolled into Log Jump, render any part of Log Jump nonmarital | Proceeds from nonmarital property were rolled into Log Jump and should be traceable as wife’s nonmarital contribution | Log Jump was titled tenants by the entirety and treated as marital absent an exclusion | Court: Remand required — trial court must determine (1) if Log Jump itself was excluded by agreement; (2) if not, whether proceeds from previously excluded/sold property were directly traceable and thus a contribution under § 8-205(b)(8)-(9) affecting the monetary award |
| Proper test for validity of an agreement excluding property under FL § 8-201(e) | Apply contract principles to antenuptial/postnuptial/postmarital agreements; general conveyances/releases can exclude property without the magic words “nonmarital” | Rely on Falise and Golden, requiring explicit reclassification language to exclude property | Court: Apply ordinary contract principles for postnuptial/antenuptial agreements (Herget, Harbom, cases applying gift/contract tests). Falise’s narrow reclassification requirement is not controlling for postnuptial/antenuptial agreements |
| Whether trial court’s monetary award must account for nonmarital contributions to tenants-by-entirety property | If Farside/Embassy were excluded by valid agreement, their proceeds used to buy Log Jump are traceable and must be considered under § 8-205 factors | Trial court treated Log Jump as marital and awarded monetary award without tracing analysis | Court: Vacated monetary award and remanded for trial court to consider tracing and statutory factors when computing any award |
Key Cases Cited
- Falise v. Falise, 493 A.2d 385 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1985) (held separation agreement must specifically reclassify property as “nonmarital” to exclude it from marital pool)
- Golden v. Golden, 695 A.2d 1231 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1997) (reversed finding of oral premarital agreement; doubted oral “what’s mine is mine” could meet Falise specificity)
- Herget v. Herget, 573 A.2d 798 (Md. 1990) (antenuptial agreement with broad mutual release can bar claim for monetary award; general release language may cover rights not yet in existence)
- Harbom v. Harbom, 760 A.2d 272 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2000) (upheld post/separation/ante-nuptial agreement analysis; applied gift and contract principles to classify IRA as nonmarital)
- Brown v. Brown, 5 A.3d 1144 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2010) (held a jointly filed Rule 9-207 statement can constitute a valid agreement excluding tenancy-by-entirety property)