- 17 -
those two provisions, id. The Court of Special Appeals of
Maryland held that the Circuit Court for Baltimore County granted
Ms. Platt only one monetary award consisting of the payment
ordered under the divorce decree $32,900 lump-sum payment provi-
sion and the payments ordered under the divorce decree provision
in question. Id. at 1222-1223. The Court of Special Appeals of
Maryland also disagreed with Mr. Bangs’ argument that the Circuit
Court for Baltimore County erred by refusing to place a “cap” or
“ceiling” on the latter payments. Id. at 1223. According to the
Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, the Circuit Court for
Baltimore County had broad discretion and did not abuse that
discretion by determining a fixed percentage for Ms. Platt of the
future payments that Mr. Bangs was to receive from the Baltimore
County pension plan. Id. at 1222-1223.
The law of Maryland in effect at the time that the Circuit
Court for Baltimore County issued the divorce decree involved in
the instant cases provides further support for our finding that
the divorce decree provision in question does not provide that
Ms. Platt is the owner of an interest in the Baltimore County
pension plan.26 The law of Maryland in effect at that time, Md.
26As discussed supra note 19, Mr. Bangs’ reliance on Witcher
v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-292, is misplaced because that
case involved a Federal military retirement program that was
subject to Federal statutes that do not apply in the instant
cases. Mr. Bangs’ reliance on Witcher also is misplaced because,
unlike the State law involved in the instant cases, the State law
(continued...)
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: March 27, 2008