Maryland case law › Ruthenberg v. Ruthenberg

Ruthenberg v. Ruthenberg

229 Md. 118 (1962) · Court of Appeals of Maryland
Court of Appeals of MarylandDisposition: AffirmedPer Curiam✓ Good law
HoldingRuth Ruthenberg appealed from an order of the Circuit Court No.

PBR Curiam. This appeal is from an order of court dated November 29, 1961, denying a petition by Ruth Ruthenberg, appellant, to have the Circuit Court No. 2 of Baltimore City revise nunc pro tunc two alimony pendente lite orders. The first, dated May 7, 1958, ordered her husband, Leon Edward Ruthenberg, the appellee, to pay $75.00 per week to his wife, subject to the further order of the court. The second, dated August 5, 1958, ordered the husband to pay $100.00 per week to the wife, effective June 2, 1958.

By decree dated February 23, 1960, the appellant was divorced a vinculo matrimonii from the appellee. The decree by its terms approved an agreement between the parties dated January 5, 1960, relative to custody of two minor children, alimony, and property rights; required the appellee to pay to the appellant $57.50 per week, accounting from the date of the decree, for the support and maintenance of the children; and stated that no right of alimony shall accrue to the appellant from the appellee by virtue of her express waiver thereof. The petition for modification nunc pro tunc was filed April 27, 1961, and requested the court to modify the pendente lite orders so as to allocate a substantial portion of the amount required to be paid under each of these orders specifically for the support of the two minor children of the parties. The purpose of the belated petition for modification, although it does not appear in the petition, was found by the chancellor in his opinion to have been precipitated by a claim asserted against Mrs. Ruthenberg by the Internal Revenue Service for income taxes claimed to be due on the 120 entire sum received by her under those orders.

Both of the orders sought to be modified were issued after hotly contested hearings before a master in chancery, each of the parties being represented by counsel (neither counsel now representing either of the

This is a preview of Ruthenberg v. Ruthenberg. About 50% of the opinion remains. Read the complete opinion in RecordCite.