Torboli v. Torboli

ROBERT F. SWEENEY, Judge (retired), Specially Assigned. Appellant, Shawn Torboli (“Mrs. Torboli”), filed a petition in the Circuit Court for Washington County seeking to enforce certain terms of a protective order issued by that court against appellee, Joseph A. Torboli (“Mr. Torboli”). The court dismissed Mrs. Torboli’s petition, and she filed a timely appeal. ⁶⁸⁶ ISSUE Mrs. Torboli raises a single issue, which we rephrase: Does Md.Code (1997 Supp.) § 4-506(g) of the Family Law Article prohibit a court from enforcing or otherwise addressing violations of an expired protective order when the acts or omissions which constituted the violations occurred while the protective order was in effect? FACTS On June 22, 1995, the Circuit Court for Washington County issued a protective order to Mrs. Torboli.

That order required Mr. Torboli, inter alia, to refrain from harassing Mrs. Torboli, and to stay away from her residence and place of employment. It also mandated that Mr. Torboli pay Mrs. Torboli $750 per month until the order’s termination date of January 8,1996. Whether Mr. Torboli made all of the required payments is disputed by the parties. Mrs. Torboli claims that Mr. Torboli faded to make a number of the payments while the order was in effect; and on October 4, 1996, she filed a petition in the Circuit Court for Washington County making such an allegation and asking that Mr. Torboli be ordered to fulfill his financial obligations under the order.

On December 13, 1996, the circuit court held a hearing on the matter. At that proceeding, the court did not take any evidence from the parties; rather, it disposed of the petition on the ground that it had no jurisdiction to act on Mrs. Torboli’s request. According to the court, Md.Code § 4-506(g) of the Family Law Article prohibits a court from enforcing or otherwise addressing violations of an expired protective order when the acts or omissions which constituted the violations occurred while the protective order was in effect. The court’s ruling reads, in relevant part: This case came before the Court on Shawn R. Torboli’s Petition by counsel seeking sanctions and enforcement of a Protective Order for household violence, (Family Law § 4-504 et seq.) and specifically seeking arrearages for failure to ⁶⁸⁷ pay emergency family maintenance pursuant to the Protective Order.

The underlying Protective Order was dated June 22, 1995 and by its terms was effective to January 8, 1996. The Petition itself recites that the [sic] “That Protective Order was to terminate on January 8, 1996” and was not filed until October 15, 1996, patently beyond the expiration of the Protective Order in January and beyond the limitation of 200 days as provided in Family Law § 4-506(g). This Court therefore has no authority to grant any relief under the expired Order and a hearing is not necessary in that regard, since, on the face of the Petition and under the law, the Court would be essentially dealing with a closed case. DISCUSSION Md.Code § 4-506(g) of the Family Law Article provides, in relevant part, that “all relief granted in a protective order shall be effective for the period stated in the order[.]” 1 The circuit court interpreted this language to prohibit a court from enforcing or otherwise addressing violations of an expired protective order even when the acts or omissions which consti ⁶⁸⁸ tuted the violations occurred while the protective order was in effect.

In this appeal, both Mr. and Mrs. Torboli contend that the ' circuit court incorrectly interpreted § 4-506(g). They argue that § 4-506(g) does not prevent a court from enforcing or otherwise addressing violations of an expired protective order when the acts or omissions which constituted the violations occurred while the protective order was in effect. We agree, and therefore will reverse the decision of the circuit court and remand the case for further proceedings. Again, the issue is whether § 4-506(g)’s statement that “all relief granted in a protective order shall be effective for the period stated in the order[ ]” prohibits a court from enforcing or otherwise addressing violations of an expired protective order when the acts or omissions which constituted the violations occurred while the protective order was in effect.

To answer this question, we must construe the relevant statutory language. When interpreting a statute, our job is to effectuate the intent of the legislature. Schweitzer v. Brewer, 280 Md. 430, 438 , 374 A.2d 347 (1977). The primary source for determining the legislative intent is