Family Law & Private Clients

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