McGeehan v. McGeehan, 455 Md. 268

Summary

The opinion considers whether deeds and an oral agreement transferring real property between spouses were valid agreements under Maryland Family Law § 8-201(e) that excluded the properties from marital property. The court examines the statutory meaning of “valid agreement,” the effect of language describing property as a spouse’s “sole separate and equitable estate,” and the treatment of proceeds later used to purchase other property. It distinguishes prior decisions requiring specific nonmarital terminology and addresses the classification of property for purposes of a monetary award in divorce.

Holdings

1. A postnuptial agreement transferring a spouse's rights, title, and interests in identified property to the other spouse as sole and separate property may constitute a valid agreement excluding that property from marital property under Family Law Article § 8-201(e), even without expressly labeling the property 'nonmarital.'
2. The Court of Special Appeals' requirement that an agreement expressly classify property as nonmarital or specifically exclude it from the Marital Property Act does not apply to the postnuptial agreement at issue.
3. The 2005 agreement validly excluded Mason Neck, Farside, and Embassy Park from marital property and transferred them to Ann as her separate property.
4. The monetary award could not stand because the trial court failed to determine whether Log Jump was excluded by a valid agreement and, if not, whether proceeds from Farside and Embassy Park were traceable nonmarital contributions that had to be considered in determining the monetary award.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the 2005 deeds and related oral agreement constituted a valid agreement under Maryland Family Law Article § 8-201(e) excluding Mason Neck, Farside, and Embassy Park from marital property.
2. Whether the Court of Special Appeals and trial court erred by requiring an express statement that the properties were nonmarital or outside the scope of the Marital Property Act.
3. Whether Log Jump was subject to exclusion by valid agreement or, alternatively, whether proceeds from the sale of nonmarital properties were traceable contributions requiring consideration in the monetary-award analysis.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded