Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Salkini v. Salkini

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

November 21, 2019

JAY SALKINI
v.
IMAN SALKINI

          Circuit Court for Howard County Case No. 13-C-15-102131

          Fader, C.J., Meredith, Raker, Irma S. (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ. [*]

          OPINION

          MEREDITH, J.

         In 2016, Jay Salkini ("Husband"), appellant, and Iman Salkini ("Wife"), appellee, were divorced by order of the Circuit Court for Howard County. This appeal is limited to the question of whether the investment earnings that accrued in Husband's 401(k) account subsequent to the date of divorce should have been divided between Husband and Wife pursuant to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO"), or whether all investment earnings in that account after the date of the divorce should be considered Husband's sole property. The Circuit Court for Howard County, which had ruled in the judgment of divorce that Husband's 401(k) account "shall be divided equally between the parties as of the date of divorce," entered a QDRO which ordered that (a) the total value of the account as of the date of the amended judgment of divorce should be divided 50% to Wife and 50% to Husband, and (b) any investment earnings on Wife's share through the date of segregation of her interest pursuant to the QDRO should be added to her share in the account at the time of segregation. Husband presents the following issue on appeal:

Whether the trial court abused its discretion when it entered a Qualified Domestic Relations Order pertaining to Appellant's 401(k) savings plan that provided for adjustment due to investment experience, when such relief was not granted in the trial court's original or amended judgment.

         For the reasons set forth herein, we shall affirm the judgment of the Circuit Court for Howard County.

         FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

         After a five-day hearing on Wife's complaint for absolute divorce, the court issued a memorandum opinion making certain findings, including "which property is marital, and the value" of that property. Under "Marital Property," the court listed Husband's 401(k) account as "Tecore Nationwide 401(k) ([titled in] Husband's name). Marital. Value $513, 000." Under the heading of "Distribution of Property and Monetary Award," the court ordered that the Husband's 401(k) be "divided equally," stating:

Tecore Nationwide 401(k) shall be divided equally between the parties by way of a qualifying court order. Wife shall arrange for the necessary court order.

         On January 29, 2016, Wife filed a Motion to Revise Judgment of Absolute Divorce-for reasons unrelated to the issues in the current appeal-in order to clarify that the monetary award was not alimony. Husband opposed the motion. By order entered February 23, 2016, the court entered an Amended Judgment of Absolute Divorce, which clarified that the monetary award "is not alimony," and included the following paragraphs relative to Husband's 401(k) account (unchanged from the previously entered judgment of divorce):

ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that, the Defendant's Tecore Nationwide 401(k) account shall be divided equally between the parties as of the date of divorce. Plaintiff shall promptly shall [sic] submit to the Court a qualified domestic relations order as defined in the Retirement Equity Act of 1984, as from time to time amended, if one is necessary, to divide the Defendant's Tecore Nationwide 401(k) account; and it is further
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that the Court retains jurisdiction to amend this Judgment and/or the aforesaid qualified domestic relations order for the purpose of maintaining its qualifications as a qualified domestic relations order under the Retirement Equity Act of 1984, or any other subsequent legislation . . . .

         On March 22, 2016, Wife filed a notice of appeal. In that appeal, Wife raised issues (unrelated to the division of the 401(k)) regarding the monetary award. Our unreported opinion was filed on April 5, 2017. See Salkini v. Salkini, No. 92, September Term, 2016, 2017 WL 1248024 (2017). We held that "the trial court's failure to explain the inequitable distribution of marital property" required a remand in order for the court to "consider the factors enumerated in [Maryland Code (1984, 2012 Repl. Vol.), Family Law Article ("FL"), ยง 8-205(b)] and provide its reasoning for distributing the marital estate in the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.