Smith v Smith, 996 A.2d 416; 193 Md.App 29; 2010 Md. App. LEXIS 92 (2010)
May 28, 2010OUTCOME: We won. The Court of Special Appeals agreed with our argument that the pay was marital property and sent the case back to the trial court to rule on the division of the pay.
The second issue in the Smith case involved the characterization of money owed husband for accrued leave upon his retirement from employment. Husband retired two weeks before the trial. We found out ... just after trial that the husband was owed a substantial sum for his accrued leave. We asked the judge to reopen the trial record to take evidence of the amount due husband for accrued leave at his retirement. The judge granted our request and husband filed a leave and earnings statement showing the gross amount, over $33,000, and the net paid him after taxes, almost $20,000. We argued that this amount was marital property and asked for an order dividing it or a monetary award. Husband’s counsel argued that these funds were not marital property. He cited Thomasian v Thomasian, 79 Md. App. 188, 556 A.2d 675, 1989 Md. App LEXIS (1989) a case that held that a divorcing spouse/employee’s accrued leave was not marital property. The trial court agreed with husband. We brought the issue to the Court of Special Appeals on a Cross-Appeal.
