Wal Mart Stores, Inc. v. Holmes

I respectfully dissent from the majority’s interpretation of § 10-201 of the Family Law Article and consequent holding that “[tjhere is presently no affirmative legal duty owed by one spouse to support the other spouse, absent a court order or a legally enforceable contractual agreement for support.”1 Maj. op. at 373, 7 A.3d at 29 (emphasis in original). In its opinion, the majority reasons that § 10-201 “cannot be read to create a general, mutual legal obligation to support a spouse by virtue of the marriage alone in light of its purposes to create a statutory offense with a prescribed set…