Sang Ho Na v. Gillespie
174 A.3d 493
| Md. Ct. Spec. App. | 2017Background
- Unmarried parents Sang Ho Na and Malinda Gillespie disputed custody of their daughter; Na filed for custody and Gillespie counterclaimed. Temporary order gave primary physical custody to Gillespie.
- Parties attended a voluntary, private mediation and signed a one-page Agreement to Mediate that expressly required confidentiality of mediation statements and documents and barred mediator testimony; it excepted any written settlement agreement.
- Mediation lasted ~nine hours but ended because of a snowstorm before parties reduced any agreement to a signed settlement; counsel exchanged drafts afterward but could not agree on a final consent order.
- Na filed a Motion to Enforce a purported mediated settlement; Gillespie moved to dismiss that motion on confidentiality grounds. At the motion hearing Na sought to present testimony and documents from the mediator and counsel to prove the existence and terms of the alleged settlement.
- The circuit court held the Agreement to Mediate barred the proffered evidence, denied Na’s Motion to Enforce, then conducted a three-day merits hearing and awarded joint legal custody, primary physical custody to Gillespie, visitation to Na, and ordered Na to pay $85,000 of Gillespie’s attorney’s fees. Na appealed and the Court of Special Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Na) | Defendant's Argument (Gillespie) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Na may introduce evidence of mediation communications to prove a binding oral settlement from a voluntary, private mediation | Confidentiality statutes/rules for court-ordered mediation don’t apply to voluntary private mediation, so Na may prove existence/terms via testimony/documents | Parties contracted in the Agreement to Mediate to keep mediation communications and documents confidential; that contract bars disclosure | Held for Gillespie: the Agreement to Mediate is an enforceable, unambiguous contract that precludes admission of the proffered evidence; denial of enforcement motion affirmed |
| Whether an evidentiary (plenary) hearing was required to resolve the disputed existence of a settlement | Court must hold evidentiary hearing when parties dispute existence of settlement | Even if usually appropriate, here such a hearing would be futile because all relevant evidence is barred by the confidentiality contract | Held for Gillespie: no mandatory hearing required where the evidence would be inadmissible; hearing would be futile |
| Whether the award of $85,000 in attorney’s fees to Gillespie was improper | (Implicit) Fees award improper or excessive given circumstances | Trial court properly applied Family Law § 12-103 factors (financial status, needs, justification) and found Na able to pay more | Held for Gillespie: appellate court finds no abuse of discretion and affirms fees award |
| Whether primary physical custody to Gillespie and visitation to Na was erroneous | Equal parental commitment means equal (50/50) custody should have been seriously considered | Trial court reasonably weighed best-interest factors (child’s age, primary caregiver, disruption, geography, interaction frequency) and declined equal shared custody | Held for Gillespie: custody award affirmed; no clear error or abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Ocean Petroleum Co. v. Yanek, 416 Md. 74 (explaining Maryland’s objective approach to contract interpretation)
- Nesbit v. Gov’t Employees Ins. Co., 382 Md. 65 (recognizing parties’ freedom to contract)
- David v. Warwell, 86 Md. App. 306 (discussing need for evidentiary hearing when existence of settlement is contested)
- Petrini v. Petrini, 336 Md. 453 (standard of review and factors for awarding attorney’s fees in family law)
- Davis v. Davis, 280 Md. 119 (emphasizing best interest of the child and deference to trial court custody findings)