Bailey v. Bailey

Hammond, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. A husband appeals from an amended decree that, on the wife’s bill for alimony, awarded her $50.00 a week, plus the husband’s half of the net income from a dwelling owned by the entireties and leased to others. The husband does not deny that he must pay alimony and support for the couple’s eighteen-year old daughter, but contests the amount awarded. After a long hearing, the chancellor, on January 22, 1958, awarded alimony and support in the amount of $60.00 a week, plus the husband’s share of the rent from the jointly owned property.

The wife had worked all during the twenty-four years of the marriage, but, because of illness, was not employed during the period of the court proceedings up to the first decree. Five days later, ⁵²⁹ she took a position with a building association. The husband petitioned for a reduction in the alimony and after another hearing, the chancellor, on March 15, 1958, passed the decree appealed from, reducing the weekly payments from $60.00 to $50.00. There is no doubt that the chancellor was without power to award the wife the husband’s share of the rental income from the real estate owned by the entireties.

Even in suits for divorce, the statute, Code 1957, Art. 16, Sec. 29, grants the equity courts power to deal with personal property only, not real property, and this is not a suit for divorce but one for alimony and support. “This being a suit for separate maintenance, and not covered by any statutory provision, there was therefore no power in the chancellor to transfer the property of either spouse to the other or to adjust the property rights of the parties.” Brown v. Brown, 199 Md. 585, 591 . To the same effect are Hull v. Hull, 201 Md. 225, 232 ; Brown v. Brown, 204 Md. 197, 210 ; Wardrop v. Wardrop, 211 Md. 14, 19 . This is not a case where the court did no more than take into account the income from the property owned by the couple in fixing the amount of alimony, nor is it one where the court exercised general equity jurisdiction to appoint a receiver for, or require an accounting as to the income from, property owned by the entireties (there is a relevant discussion of these problems in Wardrop v. Wardrop,