Fuld v. Fuld

McWii.uiams, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The appellant (Phyllis) and the appellee (Dr. Fuld) were married in April 1955. Their only child, Robert, was bom in September 1956. They were divorced a vinculo in May 1961.

A few months later Phyllis married a man named Schuster from whom she was divorced several years ago. Dr. Fuld married Nancy Fuld in October 1961. Two children were born, Steven in August 1963, Susan in November 1964. They were divorced a year or so ago.

Phyllis married her third husband in December 1968. In March 1968 Judge Wolf ordered Dr. Fuld to increase, from $30 to $35, his weekly payments to Phyllis for the support and maintenance of Robert. Phyllis contends this is “grossly insufficient” for Robert’s needs which she estimates require $430 per month. Judge Wolf also ordered Dr. Fuld to pay to counsel employed by Phyllis the sum of $25 which Phyllis contends is a “mere token” and “grossly inadequate.” Dr. Fuld is a chemist whose annual salary has increased from $8,000 in 1961 to about $18,000 in 1968.

As the beneficiary of two family trusts he receives about $2,000 annually. He testified his expenses, including $400 monthly to Nancy Fuld and her two children, the payments to Phyllis for Robert, life insurance premiums (Robert, Steven and Susan are irrevocable beneficiaries) and medical bills (mainly for psychiatric consultation), exceed his salary by about $100 per month. The income from the trusts is applied to the deficit. The extent to which his total income is diminished by state and federal taxes was not developed by either party.

Phyllis is a teacher in the Baltimore County school system for which she is paid $9,500 annually. How well her present ²⁵⁶ husband supports her or whether she receives anything from her second husband, Schuster, is not discoverable from the record. I. We have reviewed in detail the many cases that have come to this Court in which payments for the support and maintenance of the minor children of divorced couples have been considered. 1 In our judgment no useful purpose will be served by setting forth herein an analytical recitation of the various factual situations presented by those cases and how we resolved them. It is enough, we think, to say that our decisions do not compel a conclusion that Judge Wolf’s determination of the adequacy of $35 per week for the maintenance and support of Robert was clearly erroneous.

Levy v. Bernstein, 237 Md. 552 , 207 A. 2d 98 (1965).

II

Code, Art. 16 § 5A (1968 Supp.), which became effective 1 June 1967, provides as follows: “In all cases where a person makes an application for a decree or modification of a decree with respect to the custody, the amount of support or visitation rights concerning a child or children of the parties, or files any form of proceeding to recover arrearages of child support or otherwise to enforce such decree, the court, after considering the financial status of both parties, their respective needs and whether there was a substantial justification for instituting or defending the