Miller v. Mathias
428 Md. 419
Md.2012Background
- Parents Miller and Mathias share custody of a minor child; their Maryland custody order incorporated but did not merge their joint custody agreement.
- The agreement includes a mediation clause for disputes about modification, interpretation, or breach before court action.
- Mathias moves to Virginia and files in Fairfax County for custody modification; Miller opposes, asserting Maryland retains exclusive, continuing jurisdiction under § 9.5-202.
- Mathias files in Maryland to relinquish Maryland jurisdiction; she cites inconvenient forum concerns due to evidence and witnesses located in Virginia.
- Maryland Circuit Court denies relinquishment; Virginia court then orders coordination between courts; a 20-minute telephone conference occurs to discuss jurisdiction.
- Mathias later files Motion to Alter or Amend, seeking to revise the Maryland judgment; court grants it and relinquishes jurisdiction to Virginia; Miller challenges timing and hearing requirements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the circuit court erred in granting the motion to alter or amend without a hearing | Miller argues Rule 2-311(b) and (e) required response time and a hearing before ruling. | Mathias contends Rule 2-311(e) did not apply to a Rule 2-535 motion and the court reasonably ruled; hearing not required. | Harmless error; not reversible. |
| Whether inconvenient forum analysis is proper when Maryland has continuing, exclusive jurisdiction | Miller contends § 9.5-202 exclusivity bars § 9.5-207 inconvenient forum review. | Mathias argues § 9.5-207 may be invoked to relinquish jurisdiction despite continuing jurisdiction. | Inconvenient forum analysis authorized; Maryland may relinquish jurisdiction. |
| Whether the circuit court abused its discretion in relinquishing jurisdiction to Virginia | Miller claims lack of material change and misapplies factors; Maryland should retain jurisdiction. | Mathias asserts factors support Virginia as more convenient forum, especially witnesses and evidence location. | No abuse of discretion; relinquishment to Virginia affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Renbaum v. Custom Holding, Inc., 386 Md. 28 (Md. 2004) (hearing required for Rule 2-534 motions; response and evidence reception rule)
- Johnson v. Rowhouses, Inc., 120 Md.App. 579 (Md. App. 1998) (premature hearing on summary judgment without prejudice where timely response omitted)
- Alitalia v. Tornillo, 320 Md. 192 (Md. 1990) (substance governs motion type; Rule 2-535 treated as 2-534 when within 10 days)
- Hill v. Hill, 118 Md.App. 36 (Md. App. 1997) (distinguishes substance over form for motion characterization; 2-535 treated as 2-534 if same purpose)
- In re Yve S., 373 Md. 551 (Md. 2003) (abuse of discretion standard for family law decisions; framework for reviewing custody-related rulings)