Legal Opinion · Dissent

Schneider v. Schneider

Court of Appeals of Maryland

Decided July 18, 1994No. 98, September Term, 1993Published

1DissentChasanow, Judge

I respectfully dissent because I do not believe that the trial judge erred in denying specific performance of the agreement to pay spousal support. Janet filed a separate action to reopen the divorce proceedings, which was also dismissed— that dismissal was not appealed. The effect of permitting reopening the divorce proceedings would have been to allow her to seek alimony. Janet has abandoned this alternative remedy.

*519SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF THE CONTRACT FOR POST-DIVORCE SPOUSAL SUPPORT

Alimony and post-divorce spousal support are quite different. In appropriate circumstances, a court may award…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Dickey v. DickeyCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1928
  2. Zouck v. ZouckCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1990
  3. Cronin v. HebditchCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1950
  4. Maskell v. HillCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1947
  5. Messick v. SmithCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1949

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API