Sims v. Sims
1787/24
| Md. Ct. Spec. App. | Jun 30, 2025Background
- Cedric Sims (Husband) and Rebekah Sims (Wife) were married for 27 years, separated in 2020, and have four children (one minor).
- Wife filed for absolute divorce in Nov. 2022, seeking alimony, child support, monetary award, and attorney’s fees; Husband counterclaimed and requested marital property division and denial of alimony.
- After a four-day trial, the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County awarded Wife a divorce, rehabilitative alimony, child support (with arrearages), a monetary award, use of marital home, and attorneys' fees.
- Both parties agreed there were errors in the court’s calculations, particularly as to the monetary award, and the Appellate Court vacated all financial awards, remanding for recalculation.
- The appeal focused on the trial court’s handling of marital property, valuation of assets, dissipation findings, alimony, child support (including above-guidelines support and arrearages), and attorney’s fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Monetary Award Process/Asset Classification | Trial court misclassified property, misvalued, and misapplied statute | Court could exclude post-separation acquisitions; errors were minor/de minimis | Trial court failed three-step process and misclassified assets; must reassess all monetary awards |
| Alimony (Rehabilitative) | Wife wholly self-supporting; erroneous basis for rehabilitation | Properly considered statutory factors | Alimony vacated; trial court relied on unsupported findings, remand for proper analysis |
| Child Support Calculation (Above Guidelines) | Support calculated incorrectly; ignored income shares model, and arrears; paid expenses | Discretion correct due to above-guidelines; support appropriate; arrears didn't go back far enough | Calculation lacked clear basis for child’s expenses; arrearages should start at filing unless inequitable |
| Attorney’s Fees | Fee award should be reversed in light of financial award errors | Award within discretion | Fee award vacated; all interrelated awards must be reconsidered |
Key Cases Cited
- Alston v. Alston, 331 Md. 496 (Md. 1993) (court must weigh factors for equitable monetary award and distinguish between equal and equitable distribution, especially for property acquired post-separation)
- Flanagan v. Flanagan, 181 Md. App. 492 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2008) (review standards for marital property findings and requirement to apply correct procedures)
- Williams v. Williams, 71 Md. App. 22 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1987) (assets acquired before divorce, even during separation, are marital property)
- Paradiso v. Paradiso, 88 Md. App. 343 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1991) (remand required if court fails to determine/ value marital property)
- Deering v. Deering, 292 Md. 115 (Md. 1981) (recognized approaches for valuing retirement assets in divorce context)
- Sharp v. Sharp, 58 Md. App. 386 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1984) (court’s authority and process for analyzing dissipation of marital property)
- Smith v. Freeman, 149 Md. App. 1 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2002) (trial court’s broad discretion in setting above-guidelines child support)
- Caccamise v. Caccamise, 130 Md. App. 505 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2000) (retroactive child support is discretionary with court)