- 16 -
interest in the Baltimore County pension plan. Instead, he
argued (1) that the Circuit Court for Baltimore County granted
Ms. Platt two monetary awards consisting of the payment ordered
under the divorce decree $32,900 lump-sum payment provision24 and
the payments ordered under the divorce decree provision in
question25 and (2) that the Circuit Court for Baltimore County
erred by refusing to place a “cap” or “ceiling” on the latter
payments. Id. at 1222-1223.
The Court of Special Appeals of Maryland agreed with Mr.
Bangs that the payments ordered under the divorce decree $32,900
lump-sum payment provision and under the divorce decree provision
in question were in the nature of a monetary award, id. at 1223,
but disagreed with Mr. Bangs that the Circuit Court for Baltimore
County had granted Ms. Platt two separate monetary awards under
24The divorce decree $32,900 lump-sum payment provision
provided:
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that the Defendant shall
pay to the Plaintiff, as a monetary award, the sum of
Thirty-Two Thousand Nine Hundred Dollars ($32,900),
which sum shall be payable within 90 days of February
1, 1983.
25The divorce decree provision in question provided:
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that with respect to the
Defendant’s pension, the Defendant shall pay to the
Plaintiff, if, as, and when he receives each pension
payment, that sum which is determined in accordance
with the following formula:
50 percent X (12 years and seven months of
marriage ÷ by total years of employment).
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: March 27, 2008