White v. White

Thompson, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. Howard Leon White, the appellant, on a petition by his wife for contempt, was ordered to pay $1400.00 for arrearages in child support payments pursuant to a previous divorce decree by the Circuit Court for Baltimore County. The court, on the husband’s petition, modified the decree of divorce by transferring custody of three of the minor children to the appellant and voided appellant’s obligation to make any future child support payments. The parties were ordered to pay their own counsel fees.

On this appeal, Mr. White contends that the chancellor erred in his award of the money judgment and should have awarded him child support from the wife and reasonable counsel fees. On October 18, 1974, a decree of divorce awarded Mrs. White a divorce a vinculo matrimonii, custody of the parties’ five minor children, and $50.00 per week child support. There was no breakdown in the support ordered for each -child, but the children were named. Shortly after the decree, Lisa White, one of the minor children, went to live with the appellant.

In September of 1975 April and Gregory White moved in with their father. In October of 1975 Howard Leon White, Jr. reached his majority. While Howard, Jr. continued to live with the appellee, as of that date, Charles Jeffrey White was the only minor child still residing with Mrs. White. At the hearing on these petitions there was testimony that as of November of 1975, when the petition for contempt was filed, Mr. White was $340.00 in arrears.

On the date of the hearing he owed a balance of $1400.00. The appellant testified that he stopped paying support because he had three of the minor children living with him, while the appellee only had one living with her. He did make several payments of $10.00 for the support of the one minor child living with the appellee, but gave no reason why these payments were not continued. ⁶³⁷ The appellant’s net income is $143.00 per week and his expenses are said to be approximately $714.50 per month. The appellee’s net income is $156.50 per week and her expenses are said to be approximately $738.00 per month.

The appellant had a bank account from an inheritance of $3000.00. The question of whether a husband should be given credit for expenditures for the period during which he had defacto custody has been discussed several times by the Court of Appeals. In Bradford v. Futrell, 225 Md. 512 , 171 A. 2d 493 (1961), the Court recited the two schools of thought: “There is considerable conflict among the cases as to whether any credit can be given for expenditures made by the father on behalf of his children other than as provided by the decree. One line of decisions is to the effect that since the obligation of the father has been fixed by the decree, it cannot be satisfied except by strict compliance with its terms, and the proper remedy for the father, if any remedy is called for, is a motion to modify the decree.

A father may not himself determine the method of payment or to whom payment should be made. See, for example, Cotton v. Wright, 190 So. 665 (La. 1939); Campbell v. Campbell, 4 S.W.2d 1112 (Ky. 1928); Bradley v. Fowler, 192 P. 2d 969 (Wash. 1948); Roberts v. Roberts, 226 S.W.2d 579 (Ark. 1950). “Somewhat opposed to this view are decisions holding that where ‘compulsion of circumstances’ makes necessary the direct expenditures by the husband, he will be given credit when the expenditures constitute ‘substantial compliance with the spirit and intent of the decree’. Jackson v. Jackson, 209 S.W.2d 79 (Ky. 1948);