Leuba v. Leuba

Per Curiam. ⁷³³ The appellant, Harald Richard Leuba (the husband) was married to the appellee, Lois Reed Leuba (the wife), on June 30, 1962. A child, Timothy Alan Leuba (Timothy), now four years of age, was born as a result of this marriage. Marital difficulties having arisen between the husband and wife, the wife at the husband’s insistence and as a result of his threats (according to the wife’s testimony) to take the position that his Mexican divorce from his former wife was invalid, signed a separation agreement on July 8, 1965, which, inter alia, provided that the wife should have custody of Timothy and would receive $175 a month for his support. The wife on August 12, 1965, filed suit in the Circuit Court No. 2 of Baltimore City for a divorce a vinculo matrimonii from the husband on the ground of adultery and later, on October 11, 1965, filed a proceeding to obtain a declaration that the separation agreement of July 8, 1965, was null and void.

These two proceedings were consolidated. At the hearing before Judge Jones on March 15, 1966, the husband and wife reached an agreement, dictated into the record in open court. It was stipulated and agreed that the agreement of July 8, 1965, was null and void, that the existing division of property between the husband and wife should remain with certain immaterial exceptions, a payment of $650 would be made to the wife with an abandonment by her of any claim against the husband as a result of monies withdrawn by her from a credit union or from her own account, the wife would waive alimony, custody of Timothy would remain in the wife with visitation rights in the husband and, importantly for this appeal, that the husband would “make, through the Probation Department of Baltimore City, monthly support payments for the support of his son in the amount of $300, with the right to petition the court for a reduction should his income decrease so that he is unable to make these payments.” (Emphasis supplied). There were also agreements in regard to a counsel fee for the wife’s solicitor, and an agreement that the husband would be responsible for all hospital or unusual medical expenses for the care of his son.

The merits of the divorce suit were to be referred to the Master. Judge Jones wisely and properly examined both parties in open court in the presence of their respective counsel in regard ⁷³⁴ to their understanding of the stipulation and agreement, and both the husband and wife answered that they understood it. At the time the agreement and stipulation was entered into in open court, the husband was earning a base salary of $1,395 a month from his principal employer with $322 a month for overtime work. He was also earning $125 a month as an associate professor at the Johns Hopkins University.

He also at that time was a recipient, on a regular basis for three years, of a grant from that University amounting to $358 a month, but the husband knew at the time of the hearing that this grant would shortly expire. The suit was referred to the Master who, after hearing, recommended that a divorce a vinculo matrimonii be granted and that the stipulation and agreement be approved. This recommendation was followed by the lower court and by its decree of April 14, 1966, the agreement and stipulation made in open court was “approved in its entirety”. Thus, inter alia, in