Family Law & Private Clients

Represented an estate of a deceased husband in Montgomery County (Maryland) Circuit Court, successfully defending a claim that the marital property agreement he had entered into with wife was invalid. The decision was affirmed by the Appellate Court of Maryland, barring the wife’s claim to an elective share against the husband’s estate.  

Represented a father in Montgomery County (Maryland) Circuit Court in a four-day trial to determine custody and access of the parties’ minor children. The trial court’s decision was favorable to the father but only provided him with limited access and visitation. After securing in banc review by a three-judge panel under the abuse-of-discretion standard, the panel agreed with the father and reversed the trial court's initial custody and access award. The matter was remanded for reconsideration of a new custody and access schedule. The Appellate Court of Maryland agreed with the panel’s determination after the wife filed an appeal. After the case was remanded, negotiated a satisfactory schedule for the father.

Represented a mother in Carroll County (Maryland) Circuit Court in obtaining a modification of custody and child support. The court also granted the client’s petition for contempt against the husband in failing to provide sufficient information in relation to the marital award, which resulted in the recovery of a retirement account under the father’s name.   

Represented a Ukrainian refugee father in a Hague Convention proceeding before the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, securing affirmance of a return order requiring three children abducted by their mother to be returned to the United Kingdom, where the family had been granted asylum. The appellate court rejected the mother's arguments that the children were now well-settled in the United States and that the family's asylum refugee papers being lost and expired created a grave risk of return.

Defended family member of a Hague Convention petitioner in companion litigation alleging that the family member had tortiously interfered with custodial rights. We prevailed before the Supreme Court of Illinois. In a unanimous opinion, the court declined to recognize a cause of action for tortious interference with custodial rights in the State of Illinois, holding that such policy decisions are to be decided by the legislature, and ending four years of litigation.

Represented a London local authority in securing the return of a young child to the United Kingdom under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. The team prevailed at trial in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, defended post-trial motions, won affirmance in the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and coordinated U.S. and U.K. government agencies to secure the return.

Represented parent in a matter of first impression before the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which held that a federal district court has the power to continue to order interim contact during the pendency of a Hague Convention appeal. The ruling preserves the parent's contact rights with his children while his appeal proceeds.

Successfully represented the head of the international arbitration practice of a major law firm in a domestic case in Maryland. We obtained a favorable ruling for our client upholding the validity of a Postnuptial Agreement (the “Agreement”) and requiring his spouse, who challenged the validity of the Agreement, to pay over four hundred thousand dollars of the attorneys’ fees and costs incurred by our client in successfully defeating the challenge to the validity of the Agreement.

Successfully represented a family law client in a contested five day divorce case in Montgomery County Circuit Court. Initially, the client’s wife sought a large pendent lite alimony award and the Court determined after an evidentiary hearing that she was not entitled to the relief she was seeking. Subsequently, the wife unsuccessfully sought a multi-million dollar monetary award and significant attorneys’ fees. Although our client’s wife did receive a monetary award, the amount she receive was significantly less than the multi-millions dollar monetary award she requested and the Court declined to award her any attorneys’ fees.

Successfully represented the wife of a former heavyweight boxing champion in an action brought by our client against her then husband for divorce by obtaining a favorable settlement for our client in the divorce case.  

In light of changes to the federal estate tax laws, we worked with a couple to update their estate planning documents to allow the tax plan created under the last wills or revocable trusts to adapt to ever-changing estate tax laws. Under the new plan, upon the death of the first spouse, all of the deceased spouse’s assets will be transferred to a marital trust (e.g., a QTIP Trust). Elections will be made on an estate tax return to (1) qualify the marital trust for the estate tax marital deduction and (2) allow the deceased spousal unused exclusion amount to be transferred to the surviving spouse. The deceased spouse’s generation skipping transfer (GST) tax exemption will be allocated to the marital trust. Upon the death of the surviving spouse, the assets of the marital trust will receive a step-up in tax basis and the surviving spouse’s applicable estate tax exclusion (the basic exclusion plus the deceased spousal unused exclusion amount) will minimize or eliminate estate taxes. Because GST tax exemption was allocated to the marital trust, the assets of the marital trust can be held in dynasty trusts for the couple’s descendants without triggering a GST tax.

To mitigate the capital gains taxes for a client on the sale of stock that had significant built up gain we created a charitable remainder trust (CRT) for the client. The client transferred the stock to the CRT and received an income tax deduction (and gift tax deduction) on the transfer. The trustee of the CRT sold the stock and, because the CRT is tax-exempt, the capital gains taxes were not immediately due in the year of the sale. Instead, the capital gains is slowly distributed to the client with each annual payment the CRT owes to the client.

To minimize the value of a gift a client wanted to make to his children, we established a grantor retained annuity trust (GRAT). We structured the term of years of and annuity payments from the GRAT so that the value of the remainder interest of the GRAT was near zero. The appreciation of the assets inside the GRAT have significantly exceeded the 7520 rate in effect at the time the GRAT was established. We anticipate that after the GRAT terms end, the children will receive approximately $250,000 each, effectively allowing the client to make a significant gift to his children without making a taxable gift.

Palencia v. Perez, No. 18-14122, 2019 WL 1907867 (11th Cir. Apr. 30, 2019)

Alvarez v. Alvarez, No. CV MJG-17-1010, 2017 WL 2335600 (D. Md. May 30, 2017).

Gamboa v. Murphy, Civil Action No. DKC 16-3716, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 168038 (D. Md. Dec. 5, 2016).

Hogan v. Hogan, No. 1:16CV1538 (JCC/JFA), 2017 WL 106021 (E.D. Va. Jan. 10, 2017).

Pilkington v. Pilkington, No. 2766, 2016 Md. App. LEXIS 1393 (Nov. 29, 2016).

Abbott v. Abbott, 560 U.S. 1 (2010), Counsel Amicus Curiae for the Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference on Private International Law