Williams v. Williams

ROBERT M. BELL, Judge. When in litigation there is no dispute as to the proper, indeed, the mandated, resolution of an issue on appeal, communication and cooperation between counsel, often times will vitiate the need for continuation of the litigation with its attendant requirements of time and resource expenditure. Had that been done in this case, this matter would have long since been resolved and without our intervention. The genesis of this appeal lies in a prior appeal, involving the same parties, the decision in which is controlling as to the issue presented.

A brief review of the facts will place this matter in perspective. Prior to their divorce, James B. Williams, Jr., appellant, and Nancy Grube Williams, appellee, entered into a separation and property settlement agreement requiring appellant to make certain payments to appellee as alimony. Subsequently, the parties were divorced a vinculo matrimonii by the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, which ratified, approved, and adopted the agreement. Consistent with the agreement, the court did not incorporate or merge it into the decree.

Thereafter, alleging that appellant had breached the agreement by failing to make the alimony payments required, appellee instituted an action for contempt, entry of a monetary judgment, and specific performance of the separation agreement. The trial court entered an order on July 21, 1983, in which it held that appellant’s breach of the separation agreement could be enforced through contempt. In addition, the court entered a judgment against appellant in the amount of the arrears claimed and referred the matter to a master for a contempt hearing. Appellant appealed that judgment. ²²⁴ While appellant’s appeal was pending, a hearing was held before the domestic relations master, which resulted in a recommendation that appellant be found in contempt.

Appellant excepted to this recommendation, but his exceptions were overruled by order dated April 27, 1984. Thereafter, by order dated May 2, 1984, appellant was adjudged in contempt of court for “willful and deliberate” failure to comply with the separation agreement. The validity of both of these rulings was brought into question on December 3, 1984, when we filed our unpublished per curiam opinion in Williams v. Williams, No. 377, September Term, 1984, Williams I. 1 We reversed the trial court’s ruling that an agreement that was neither incorporated nor merged into a divorce decree, could form the basis for a contempt action. We thus remanded the case to the Circuit Court for Montgomery County for proceedings consistent with that opinion.

Upon remand, the trial court issued an order deleting from the July 21, 1983 order that portion which remanded the case to the master for the taking of testimony on the issue of contempt. Appellant, relying upon our opinion in Williams I, urges that we vacate the orders of April 27, 1984 and May 2, 1984. Appellee responds by motion to dismiss and on the merits, contending that the issue is moot. Specifically, appellee concedes that our prior decision is controlling — she has not sought certiorari on this issue 2 — and, thus, appellee submits, to decide this issue would not affect what has already occurred; any discussion of the issue would be only of academic or abstract relevance.

She points to the supplemental order filed by the trial court following Williams I as being indicative of the fact that no controversy exists. ²²⁵ A case is moot if at the time it is before the Court there is no existing controversy between the parties and no effective remedy which the Court can provide. News American v. State, 294 Md. 30 , 447 A.2d 1264 (1982); Attorney General v. Anne Arundel County School Bus Contractors Association, 286 Md. 324 , 407 A.2d 749 (1979); Bethesda Management Service v. Department of Licensing and Regulation, 276 Md. 619 , 350 A.2d 390 (1976). When an appellate court rules on an issue in a case, that ruling becomes the “law of the case”, binding on the court and the litigants alike.