Robinette v. Hunsecker

14 Citing cases

  1. Pulliam v. Pulliam

    222 Md. App. 578 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2015)   Cited 6 times

    As is often the case with a living language, the term has sometimes leapt the boundaries of its formal meaning to encompass generically orders in divorces that distribute retirement plan benefits, much as “xerox copy” became a synonym for “photocopy” regardless of the machine used to produce it, and the verb “google” has come to mean searching the Internet regardless of the search engine being used.Robinette v. Hunsecker, 439 Md. 243, 247, 96 A.3d 94 (2014). The acquired broader meaning of the QDRO is understandable given its history.

  2. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Maurer

    13 Civ. 3302 (NRB) (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 9, 2015)   Cited 3 times

    In such a situation, the plaintiff may sue over the entire asset immediately, rather than waiting for the defendant to receive each dividend. See Frigillana v. Frigillana, 584 S.W.2d 30 (Ark. 1979) (annuity); Robinette v. Hunsecker, 96 A.3d 94 (Md. 2014) (same); Fischback v. Mercuri, 919 N.E.2d 804 (Ohio App. 2009) (same); Omohundro v. Matthews, 341 S.W.2d 401 (Tex. 1960) (oil royalties).

  3. Trentzsch v. Trentzsch (In re Trentzsch)

    Case No. 1:19-bk-00811-HWV (Bankr. M.D. Pa. Dec. 5, 2019)

    Without deciding the choice of law issues that may be present, Maryland law is in accord with Pennsylvania law. See Fisher v. Estate of Fisher, No. 1873,SEPT.TERM, 2016, 2018 WL 2474184, at *5 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. June 1, 2018), cert. denied sub nom. Estate of Fisher v. Estate of Fisher, 461 Md. 457, 193 A.3d 208 (2018) (citing Wimmer v. Wimmer, 287 Md. 663, 668 (1980) ("The purpose of the remedy is to prevent the unjust enrichment of the holder of the property."); Robinette v. Hunsecker, 439 Md. 243, 259, 96 A.3d 94, 103 (2014) (concluding that the court "has authority to impose a constructive trust on retirement benefits [already] received by a surviving spouse when . . . circumstances [] give the former spouse a 'higher equitable call' to the promised benefits.")

  4. Bennett v. Ashcraft & Gerel, LLP

    259 Md. App. 403 (Md. 2023)   Cited 6 times

    " Robinette v. Hunsecker , 439 Md. 243, 255, 96 A.3d 94 (2014) (quoting Wimmer v . Wimmer , 287 Md. 663, 668, 414 A.2d 1254 (1980) ). "The remedy is applied by operation of law where property has been acquired by fraud, misrepresentation, or other improper method, or where the circumstances render it inequitable for the party holding the title to retain it."

  5. Jackson v. Sollie

    449 Md. 165 (Md. 2016)   Cited 27 times
    In Jackson, the Court of Appeals held that a general consideration of the parties' "actual or anticipated Social Security benefits" must be weighed as part of a trial court's analysis of this factor if there is evidence in the record making it relevant. 449 Md. at 173.

    For the reasons stated below, we shall answer twofold: (1) in a divorce proceeding, a trial judge is preempted by federal law from dividing Social Security benefits (including its hypothetical value) directly or by way of an indirect offset when determining the equitable distribution of marital property; (2) on the basis of the evidence presented, a judge must consider a party's actual or anticipated Social Security benefits as a relevant factor under F.L. § 8–205(b) when determining whether to grant a monetary award to adjust the equities and rights of the parties concerning marital property. “A court that grants a divorce has authority to determine which property is marital property, to assess its value, to order the transfer of ownership of certain categories of property, and to grant a monetary award to adjust ‘the equities and rights of the parties.’ ” Robinette v. Hunsecker, 439 Md. 243, 245–46, 96 A.3d 94, 95 (2014) (quoting F.L. §§ 8–201 through 8–205 ). Accordingly, we vacate the judgment of the Circuit Court, and remand this case for the judge's consideration of the parties' anticipated Social Security benefits in determining whether it would be equitable to enter a monetary award.

  6. Bennett v. Ashcraft & Gerel, LLP

    No. 31-2022 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Oct. 27, 2023)

    "'A constructive trust is the remedy employed by a court . . . to convert the holder of legal title to property into a trustee for one who in good conscience should reap the benefits . . . of [the] property.'" Robinette v. Hunsecker, 439 Md. 243, 255 (2014) (quoting Wimmer v. Wimmer, 287 Md. 663, 668 (1980)).

  7. Bennett v. Ashcraft & Gerel, LLP

    No. 31-2022 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Sep. 1, 2023)

    "'A constructive trust is the remedy employed by a court . . . to convert the holder of legal title to property into a trustee for one who in good conscience should reap the benefits . . . of [the] property.'" Robinette v. Hunsecker, 439 Md. 243, 255 (2014) (quoting Wimmer v. Wimmer, 287 Md. 663, 668 (1980)).

  8. Abdullahi v. Zanini

    241 Md. App. 372 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2019)   Cited 48 times
    In Abdullahi v. Zanini, 241 Md.App. 372, 411 (2019), we had occasion to address the question of whether a Maryland College Investment Plan account and a Maryland College Trust account should be included in the computation of a marital award.

    As this Court has explained: "A qualified domestic relations order, or QDRO, is a subset of domestic relations orders that recognizes the right of an alternate payee to receive all or a portion of the benefits payable with respect to a pension plan's participant under the respective pension plan." Robinette v. Hunsecker , 212 Md. App. 76, 81 n.2, 66 A.3d 1093 (2013), aff'd , 439 Md. 243, 96 A.3d 94 (2014). The World Bank required the division of retirement benefits be granted as spousal support.

  9. Horan v. Marks

    No. 2249 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Apr. 1, 2019)

    The remedy of constructive trust was developed by the equity courts, before law and equity were consolidated, to "parallel" the quasi-contract theory used in law courts to remedy unjust enrichment. Robinette v. Hunsecker, 439 Md. 243, 255 n.12 (2014). "The distinction between the two remedies is 'procedural rather than substantive.'"

  10. Monument Bank v. Am. Bank, FSB

    No. 2242 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Jun. 21, 2017)

    Baker v. Baker, 221 Md. App. 399, 403 (2015); see also Robinette v. Hunsecker, 212 Md. App. 76, 126 (2013) ("Admittedly, a claim of unjust enrichment, a quasi-contract claim, 'may not be brought where the subject matter of the claim is covered by the express contract between the parties.'" (quoting J. Roland Dashiell & Sons, Inc., 358 Md. at 96)), aff'd, 439 Md. 243 (2014). To be sure, a plaintiff may plead a claim for unjust enrichment in the alternative to breach of contract so long as the claim for unjust enrichment includes an allegation of fraud or bad faith in the formation of the contract.