RODOWSKY, Judge.
Maryland Code (1984, 1991 Repl.Vol.), § 8-103(c) of the Family Law Article (FL) reads:
“The court may modify any provision of a deed, agreement, or' settlement with respect to alimony or spousal support executed on or after April 13, 1976, regardless of how the provision is stated, unless there is:
(1) an express waiver of alimony or spousal support; or
(2) a provision that specifically states that the provisions with respect to alimony or spousal support are not subject to any court modification.”
The principal issue presented here is whether parties who agree that the amount of spousal support may be court-modified only under certain circumstances, but that support [651]*651otherwise is not to be modified, have utilized with legal effect the subsection (c)(2) exception to the general rule of modifiability.
The issue arises out of the marital settlement agreement (the Agreement) entered into on May 4, 1988, by Debra L. Shapiro (Ms. Shapiro) and David L. Shapiro (Mr. Shapiro). Mr. Shapiro is a clinical psychologist. Ms. Shapiro is a computer programmer and teacher of computer science. Four children were born of the marriage: Sara (9/4/73), Laura (11/11/75), Ann (6/7/79), and Jonathan (1/7/82). Mr. Shapiro remarried in December 1988. Ms. Shapiro has not remarried.
The Agreement was incorporated into, but not merged with, the divorce judgment granted the parties on August 29, 1988, by the Circuit Court for Howard County. Under the Agreement and the decree, the parties have joint custody of their children, whose primary residence is with their mother.
The Agreement recites the parties’ intent “to settle all questions of maintenance and support, alimony, counsel fees, their respective rights in ... property ... and all other matters of every kind and character arising from their marital relationship.” Payments by Mr. Shapiro “as alimony” are as required by parts 5(a) and (b) of the Agreement. Part 5(a) payments of $2,500 per month terminate on the first to occur of the death of either spouse or the arrival of January 1, 2009. There is no provision for the part 5(a) “alimony” to end on Ms. Shapiro’s remarriage. Part 5(b) payments of $1,250 per month commence January 1, 2009, and terminate on the first to occur of the death of either spouse or Ms. Shapiro’s remarriage. For income tax purposes payments made pursuant to both parts are to be deducted by Mr. Shapiro and included in income by Ms. Shapiro.
The January 1, 2009 termination date for part 5(a) “alimony” bears no significant relation to the age of any of the children or to the termination of child support. Under the Agreement support for a child ends on the child’s twenty-fifth birthday. The youngest child reaches age twenty-seven seven days after the part 5(a) payments end.
[652]*652Possible modification of the alimony is addressed in part 5(e), reading:
“Said alimony payments shall not be modified by the Court except in the event that Husband shall become temporarily or permanently disabled as defined in Husband’s current disability insurance policy. In the event of such disability, Husband shall have the right to submit the issue of alimony to arbitration under the rules of the American Arbitration Association or some similarly recognized arbitration association. The provisions of this paragraph will not apply if Husband and Wife agree to support modifications as a result of any disability. The level of support preceding Husband’s disability shall remain in effect until said arbitration has resulted in the binding recommendation of a new support figure.”
(Emphasis added). Part 5(f) requires Mr. Shapiro to maintain a disability policy at least as comprehensive as his policy then in effect so long as he is required to make “alimony” payments. Mr. Shapiro is not and has not been disabled.
Mr. Shapiro also agreed to pay child support for his four children in installments of $250 per month for each child. Termination events are Mr. Shapiro’s death, the death of an individual child, or the child’s reaching age twenty-five. The Agreement contains a cost-of-living formula for annual adjustments of child support. Mr. Shapiro further agreed to be responsible “for such other Child-related expenses as medical, dental, and orthodonture expenses, the expenses of Bar and Bat Mitzvah, and camp,” and “to pay the reasonable costs of college tuition, room, and board for each child.”
Approximately sixteen months after the divorce was granted Mr. Shapiro petitioned the court to rescind the Agreement or to modify it. His effort to rescind the Agreement was unsuccessful, and those issues are not before us. Subsequently, the court (Kane, J.) held that the provisions of the Agreement for the payment of alimony were subject to court modification, despite the express provision that the alimony payments were not to be modified, except in the event of Mr. [653]*653Shapiro’s disability—a condition that had not occurred. The court based its conclusion on Langley v. Langley, 88 Md.App. 535, 596 A.2d 89 (1991).
Langley involved a separation agreement that provided for a court determination of spousal support in the event the husband were to become unemployed. But for that provision, the agreement was silent on modifiability vel non of support. When the husband sought a modification of the amount of support, although he was still employed, the trial court dismissed the petition because the sole condition for modification had not occurred. Id. at 537, 596 A.2d at 90. The Court of Special Appeals reversed.
It noted that FL § 8-103(c)(2) required “a specific statement that support is not subject to any court modification,” both of which were lacking in the Langleys’ agreement. Id. at 540-41, 596 A.2d at 92. The court said:
“While their agreement provides that the parties may petition the court to modify the support obligation if Mr. Langley should become unemployed, the agreement is devoid of a specific statement, as required by statute, in order to preclude the eourt from modifying the support obligation under other circumstances. Without the requisite definitive statement, their agreement is subject to modification by the court.”
Id. at 541, 596 A.2d at 92 (emphasis added).
Ms. Langley then argued that the separation agreement, by limiting modification to one circumstance, was properly to be construed to prohibit modification under any other circumstances. The Court of Special Appeals rejected this contention. It repeated that FL § 8—103(c)(2) “unequivocally requires a specific statement that the agreement is not subject to any court modification.” Id. The court further held that “[wjithout the requisite § 8-103(c)(2) statement, the Langleys’ spousal support provision is subject to modification despite” the paragraph addressing the husband’s possible unemployment. Id.
[654]*654Insofar as it bears on the issues before us, Langley may be read in two different ways. One passage, quoted above, strongly suggests that the Langleys’ agreement would have complied with § 8-103(c)(2) if the provision concerning all circumstances other than unemployment specifically stated that it was not subject to any modification. On the other hand, the twice repeated statement of the effect of § 8-103(c)(2) refers the specific statement of non-modifiability to the entire agreement.
In the instant matter the Shapiros’ Agreement expressly precludes court modification, except in the event of Mr. Shapiro’s disability, when modification by an arbitrator is permitted. The circuit court concluded that Langley was not thereby distinguished. Failure to use the “requisite” language to block all modification made the Agreement potentially modifiable at any time and under any circumstances.
At a later hearing, the court (Sweeney, J.) considered whether the spousal support provisions of the Agreement should be modified. There was evidence presented by Mr. Shapiro that the tax deductibility of alimony weighed heavily in setting forth in the Agreement the amount of spousal support as compared to child support. The court was persuaded by this evidence. Insofar as relevant to the issues now before us, the circuit court entered the following judgment:
“13. The alimony provisions of the parties’ Agreement ... shall be considered child support for purposes of any further construction of the Agreement by this Court.
“14. ... [Mr. Shapiro’s] alimony and child support obligations are hereby modified to the effect that [Mr. Shapiro] shall be allowed an offset against his monthly child support obligation for each child who is attending college and for whom [Mr. Shapiro] is paying college education expenses in accordance with the ... Agreement. [Mr. Shapiro] shall further be allowed an offset in the amount of that child’s proportionate share of his monthly alimony payments for each child who is attending college and for whom [Mr. [655]*655Shapiro] is paying college education expenses in accordance with the ... Agreement.”
Ms. Shapiro appealed to the Court of Special Appeals which, in an unreported opinion, affirmed those aspects of the circuit court judgment discussed above. The intermediate appellate court held that the circuit court properly had applied Langley (“Paragraph 5(e) of the Shapiros’ agreement does not contain a provision, as required by statute ... to preclude the court from modifying the spousal support agreement obligation under any circumstances.”). The intermediate appellate court also held that the circuit court had not erred in revising the divorce decree to recharacterize alimony as child support.
We granted Ms. Shapiro’s petition for certiorari which raises two questions. The first is whether FL § 8-103(c)(2) requires the alimony or spousal support provisions of a separation agreement to be entirely modifiable or entirely non-modifiable. We answer that question in the negative in Part I, infra. The second question presented is: “In the absence of fraud, mistake, or irregularity, may a court rewrite a marital settlement agreement which is part of an enrolled judgment?” We reject the revision of the separation agreement in Part II, infra.1
I
In § 8-103(e)(2) the word, “provision,” appears four times in singular or plural number. The first appearance is in the statement of the general rule that “the court may modify any provision of a[n] ... agreement ... with respect to [656]*656alimony or spousal support----” Use of the pronominal indefinite adjective, “any,” is the recommended drafting technique in the Code Revision Project for “defining the class.” Governor’s Commission to Revise the Annotated Code of Maryland, Revisor’s Manual at 51 (2d ed. Nov.1973). The second appearance is in the clause, “regardless of how the provision is stated.” Under this clause the distinction previously made between technical alimony and contractual support becomes irrelevant for purposes of applying § 8-103(e). Under prior law technical alimony was modifiable and contractual support was not modifiable, despite what a separation agreement said. See Horsey v. Horsey, 329 Md. 392, 410-11, 620 A.2d 305, 315 (1993); McAlear v. McAlear, 298 Md. 320, 329-30, 469 A.2d 1256, 1260-61 (1984); Emerson v. Emerson, 120 Md. 584, 597-98, 87 A. 1033, 1038-39 (1913). The third appearance introduces an exception to the general rule, “unless there is ... a provision that specifically states----” The fourth appearance is the language, “that the provisions with respect to alimony or spousal support are not subject to any court modification.”
The courts below read the fourth appearance, “provisions,” to mean all of the provisions. That reading is influenced by the singular in the third appearance, suggesting that the exception to the general rule can only be achieved by one provision that specifically states that “the provisions,” read as “all of the provisions,” are not subject to any court modification. Of course, if that were the legislative intent, the draftsperson could more precisely have said, “unless there is ... a provision that specifically states that no provision ... is subject to any court modification.” That is, in effect, the construction for which Mr. Shapiro contends. He submits that a bright-line test is intended that carries forward the all or nothing approach to modifiability previously encountered in the technical alimony-contractual support distinction.
Ms. Shapiro contends for a construction that would permit specifying, provision by provision within the class, whether a provision is modifiable or not. A hypothetical may be used to illustrate Ms. Shapiro’s contention. The parties might agree [657]*657in provision one to an initial amount of spousal support and in that provision specifically state that the amount is not subject to court modification, unless otherwise provided. In provision two they might agree to a modification of the initial amount to a different, specific amount upon the payor’s retirement, and in that provision specifically state that the revised amount is not subject to court modification. In provision three the parties might address loss of employment, prior to retirement, by the payor, and agree to court modification under that described circumstance. Provision four might address disability of the payor and provide for court modification under that described circumstance. Ms. Shapiro submits that the courts below erred in adopting a construction requiring that all four circumstances addressed in our hypothetical agreement must be unmodifiable for any to be unmodifiable, and in holding that, if any provision is modifiable, all provisions become modifiable, even if the agreement expressly says that some provisions are not modifiable.
Rules of interpretation are set forth in Md.Code (1957, 1996 Repl.Vol.), Article 1. Section 8 provides that “[t]he singular always includes the plural, and vice versa, except where such construction would be unreasonable.” Under this statutory directive, the third and fourth appearances in § 8-103(c) of “provision(s)” can be read either uniformly in the singular or uniformly in the plural—“unless there are provisions that specifically state that the provisions” within the class are hot subject to any court modification, or, “unless there is a provision that specifically states that a provision” within the class is not subject to any court modification. Either form, permissible under Art. 1, § 8, raises at least an ambiguity as to whether the parties may contract concerning court modifiability, vel non, provision by provision.2
[658]*658A
When we turn to the legislative history of FL § 8—103(e) for assistance in resolving the ambiguity, we find that the language to be construed first appeared in the Code with the enactment of what is now FL § 8-103(b),3 that the purpose of subsections (b) and (c) was to remove a technical, legal obstacle to effectuating the parties’ intent as expressed in their contract, and that there is nothing indicating that the General Assembly intended to prevent parties, by contract, from excepting themselves under specified conditions, as opposed to universally, from modifiability.
FL § 8—103(b) was enacted by Chapter 849 of the Acts of 1975 to overturn the rule, exemplified by Simpson v. Simpson, 18 Md.App. 626, 308 A.2d 410 (1973), under which technical alimony was modifiable but contractual spousal support was not. LaChance v. LaChance, 28 Md.App. 571, 576 n. 7, 346 A.2d 676, 680 n. 7 (1975). The separation agreement in Simpson stated specifically that its “alimony” provisions would be subject to “ ‘continuing jurisdiction and further orders of the Circuit Court for Baltimore County.’ ” Simpson, 18 Md. App. at 630, 308 A.2d at 413. Because the agreement failed to terminate the payments on the death of the payor, the payments were not technical alimony, and the court was powerless to consider modification after the payor had retired from active employment. Id. at 631, 308 A.2d at 414.
Chapter 849 of the Acts of 1975 addressed the problem by amending Md.Code (1957, 1973 Repl.Vol.), Art. 16, § 28. The then existing statute recognized the validity of separation agreements and provided that child custody agreements were subject to court modification under the best interests of the [659]*659child standard. Chapter 849 wove its provisions into that existing statutory framework in the fashion set forth below, where the italicized matter reflects new language added to the existing statute.
“[Pjrovided, that whenever any such deed or agreement shall make provision for or in any manner affect the care, custody, education or maintenance of any infant child or children of the parties, or shall make provision for or in any manner affect support, maintenance, property rights, or personal rights between the husband and wife, the court shall have the right to modify such deed or agreement in respect to such infants as to the court may seem proper, looking always to the best interests of such infants, or in respect to support, maintenance, property rights, or personal rights between the husband and wife regardless of the manner in which the provisions are expressed or stated unless the provisions of the deed, agreement, or settlement specifically state that they are not subject to any court modification.”
(Emphasis added).
The 1975 enactment had a postponed effective date of January 1, 1976. Under cover of a letter of October 13, 1975, the Family Law Committee of the Bar Association of Baltimore City, Inc. transmitted to the House Judiciary Committee a proposed emergency bill that would amend the 1975 legislation. That proposal became House Bill 467 which was enacted as Chapter 170 of the Acts of 1976, effective April 13, 1976.4 See Bill File on H.B. 467 of the 1976 Session of the General Assembly.
The covering letter from the bar association committee stated that the objective of the 1975 enactment, i.e., “wiping out” the distinction between technical alimony and contractual support, “was certainly meritorious as in too many instances, the wording utilized by the draftsman to set forth the true [660]*660intent of the settling parties produced a result contrary to what was actually intended.” The letter, however, pointed out at least two areas in which the 1975 legislation was said to have gone too far. The first was by including property rights and personal rights within the scope of a court’s power to modify an agreement. The second was that the 1975 legislation could be read to permit the parties by contract to prevent a court from modifying child custody and child support awards.5
Chapter 170 of the Acts of 1976 addressed these concerns by separating the provisions relating to the modification of child custody and support from those relating to spousal support, by eliminating from the latter the reference to property and personal rights, and by recognizing contractually based waivers of spousal support. In relevant part the language enacted by Chapter 170 read as follows:
“Furthermore, any provision in the deed or agreement in respect to alimony, support and maintenance of the husband or wife is subject to modification by the court to the extent the court deems just and proper regardless of the manner in which the provisions with respect to the alimony, support and maintenance are expressed or stated unless there is an express waiver of alimony, support and maintenance by the husband or wife or unless the provisions of the deed, agreement, or settlement specifically state that the provisions with respect to the alimony, support and maintenance of the husband or wife are not subject to any court modification.”
Thus, in terms of our dissection of the use of “provision(s)” in FL § 8—103(c), the 1976 legislation used the plural in both the third and fourth appearances of the term. By utilizing the [661]*661plural in both the subject and the predicate of the exception, the draftsperson created a semantic ambiguity as to the number intended. R. Dickerson, The Fundamentals of Legal Drafting § 6.5, at 124 (2d ed.1986), advises as follows:
“So far as substantive meaning permits, it is desirable to use the singular rather than the plural. This will avoid the question whether the predicate applies separately to each member of the subject class or jointly to the subject class taken as a whole.”
The rule of interpretation set forth in Art. 1, § 8 was in effect in 1976. Consequently, unless it would be unreasonable to do so, the 1976 enactment could be read to say, “unless a provision of the ... agreement ... specifically states a provision with respect to ... support ... is not subject to any court modification.” Thus, the parties could specifically state exclusion from modifiability provision by provision.
Former Art. 16, § 28 remained unchanged from the emergency legislation of 1976 until the enactment, by Chapter 296 of the Acts of 1984, of the Family Law Article as part of the Code Revision Project. Because of the differences in the subject matter of the contract provisions dealt with in the 1975 and 1976 enactments, and because of the difference in effective dates, the two enactments were separately presented in FL § 8-103 as subsections (b) and (c). In restyling former § 28 to create present subsection (c), the revisor had to express two ways in which the parties could, by agreement, prevent court modification of spousal support provisions, namely, (1) an express waiver of alimony or spousal support and (2) “provisions” in the agreement specifically stating that “the provisions with respect to ... support ... are not subject to any court modification.” The revisor introduced both exceptions by saying, “unless there is:”. That introduction accommodated the singular, “an express waiver,” in then existing Art. 16, § 28, but the singular of the verb, “is,” conflicted with the plural used in then existing Art. 16, § 28 for the second exception, “provisions.” Thus, “provisions” in the prior statute became “a provision” dealing with “the provisions,” the latter of which the courts below read to mean “all provisions.”
[662]*662A legislative intent supporting the interpretation of the courts below cannot be derived from the change between the 1976 language and the Code Revision language. The Re-visor’s Note to § 8-103 does not specifically address the change. See Md.Code (1984), Revisor’s Note following FL § 8-103. That Note, however, does advise that “[t]his section is new language derived without substantive change from the second and third sentences of former Art. 16, § 28.” Id.
FL § 8-103(c) is incorporated into FL § 8-105(b), enacted by Chapter 443 of the Acts of 1990.6 The purpose of § 8-105(b) was to change the rule enunciated in Mendelson v. Mendelson, 75 Md.App. 486, 541 A.2d 1331 (1988). See J.F. Fader, II & R.J. Gilbert, Maryland Family Law § 13-8(b)(1)(iv) (2d ed.1995); Floor Report by the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee on S.B. 252 of the 1990 Session of the General Assembly.7 We find nothing in the legislative history of FL § 8-105 that is particularly enlightening on the issue before us. To the extent that the parties could agree under FL § 8-103(c) that there would be no modification, the parties could so agree after the 1990 enactment.
B
Thus, it appears that FL § 8-103(c)(2), and the predecessor statute that was restyled into FL § 8-103(c)(2), do not [663]*663unambiguously support the construction applied by the courts below and that the language can also accommodate Ms. Shapiro’s contention. On the other hand, we have uncovered nothing in the legislative history that indicates that the General Assembly ever focused on the issue with which we are here concerned. Thus, in order to construe the statute on the issue here, we examine the General Assembly’s purpose in enacting it. See Kaczorowski v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 309 Md. 505, 525 A.2d 628 (1987).
As we have seen in Part I.A, supra, the statute’s immediate purpose was to permit court modification of contractual support, unless the parties otherwise agreed, by eliminating, in the modification context, the distinction between technical alimony and contractual support. The ultimate purpose was to prevent the unintended results under separation agreements that were produced by the technical alimony-contractual support dichotomy.
If the statutory exception to the general rule of modifiability is read to require a blanket provision, making non-modifiable each and every provision in a package of provisions relating to spousal support, then the evil that the General Assembly sought to cure by § 8-103(c)(2) is recreated. The only difference is the nature of the contractual intent that is frustrated. Under the technical alimony-contractual spousal support distinction, intended modifiability was frustrated. Under the construction applied by the courts below, intended non-modifiability of one or more provisions out of the whole number of contractual spousal support provisions in an agreement can be frustrated. We can discern no legislative purpose to substitute one form of frustration of contractual intent for another in a statute intended to fulfill expectations based on the parties’ agreement. Nor do we discern in this statute, that was intended to abolish the technical alimony-contractual support distinction, an intent to perpetuate the all or nothing approach to modifiability that characterized that prior law.
The foregoing conclusion is reinforced by the public policy of the past sixty-five years, that is now expressed in FL § 8-[664]*664101(a). It provides that “[a] husband and wife may make a valid and enforceable deed or agreement that relates to alimony, support, property rights, or personal rights.” FL § 8-101(a) was first enacted by Chapter 220 of the Acts of 1931. In its original form the statute read, in part, that separation agreements “shall be valid, binding and enforceable to every intent and purpose.... ” Id. The broad, validating approach of FL § 8-101(a) is inconsistent with restrictively reading FL § 8-103(c)(2) to require that the contractual spousal support provisions in a sophisticated separation agreement must either be modifiable as a class or non-modifiable as a class. It is similarly inconsistent with § 8-101(a)’s invitation to contract to declare modifiable that which is specifically nonmodifiable based on the lack of uniformity as to modifiability among all provisions relating to spousal support.
In addition to relying on Langley, Mr. Shapiro argues that the General Assembly intended an all or nothing approach in FL § 8-103(c)(2) in order to permit a court to apply the factors for setting the level of spousal support that are required to be considered under FL § ll-106(b).8 First, FL [665]*665§ 11—106(b) was enacted by Chapter 575 of the Acts of 1980, some four years after enactment of the statute that is now FL § 8-103(c)(2). Second, § 11-106 addresses the initial determination of “the amount of and the period for an award of alimony,” FL § 11-106(a), not a modification. Third, where the parties have agreed on non-modifiable support payments under some circumstances and have agreed that they will look to the court for modification under some other circumstance, if and when that other circumstance occurs and the parties come to the court for modification, the court at that time would not be restricted from considering as many of the types of factors enumerated in FL § ll-106(b) as are relevant to the circumstances at that time.
Inasmuch as Mr. Shapiro is not and has not been disabled, the sole circumstance under which modification of spousal support is permitted by the Agreement has not occurred. For all the foregoing reasons we hold that the presently operative spousal support provision is not modifiable, as the parties agreed. To the extent that Langley is inconsistent with our holding in this case, it is overruled.9
II
In its decree the circuit court also ordered that the “alimony provisions” of the Agreement “shall be considered child support....” The Court of Special Appeals affirmed that aspect of the circuit court’s order, concluding that the [666]*666circuit court had the power so to alter the Agreement by a combination of FL §§ 8-105(b), 8—103(c)(2), and its decision in Lieberman v. Lieberman, 81 Md.App. 575, 568 A.2d 1157 (1990). The argument fails because the Agreement had been incorporated into the judgment for divorce of August 29,1988. When Mr. Shapiro filed his petition for modification in December 1989, approval of the alimony provisions, “as alimony,” had been effected by incorporation of the Agreement into the decree. Unless a statute otherwise provided, that aspect of the decree was subject to modification only for fraud, mistake, or irregularity. Maryland Rule 2-535(b); Platt v. Platt, 302 Md. 9, 485 A.2d 250 (1984). No ground under Rule 2-535(b) for revising the judgment is asserted here.
FL § 8-105(b) states that a court may modify any provision of an agreement that is incorporated into a divorce decree, and that statute is expressly retroactive. Acts of 1990, Chapter 443, SEC. 2. But the power is expressly limited to any provision that is “subject to modification under § 8-103____” FL § 8-105(b)(2). The power is not exercisable here because we have held in Part I, supra, that the alimony provision of the Agreement is not modifiable, except as provided in the Agreement.10
Lieberman is not authority for modifying an enrolled judgment, absent a statutory authorization to do so. That opinion construed a payment provision in order to determine the amount originally allocated to child support and the amount originally allocated to spousal support. The judgment under direct review in Lieberman was an appealable interlocutory judgment for the payment of money. See Md.Code (1974, 1995 Repl.Vol.), § 12-303(3)(v) of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article.
Here, the circuit court denied Mr. Shapiro’s claim to decrease child support, except for the set-off of college expenses [667]*667against alimony and child support. Because the denial of any downward modification of child support was in part predicated on the validity of the set-off against the alimony payments, which we have reversed, the remand to the circuit court for further proceedings, previously ordered by the Court of Special Appeals, will include consideration of possible downward revisions of child support.
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED IN PART. CASE REMANDED TO THAT COURT FOR THE ENTRY OF AN ORDER AFFIRMING IN PART AND REVERSING IN PART THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR HOWARD COUNTY AND REMANDING THIS ACTION TO THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR HOWARD COUNTY FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS CONSISTENT'WITH THIS OPINION AND, AS TO THE APPLICATION OF CHILD SUPPORT GUIDELINES, WITH THE OPINION OF THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS. COSTS IN THIS COURT TO BE PAID BY THE RESPONDENT, DAVID L. SHAPIRO. COSTS IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS TO BE EQUALLY DIVIDED BETWEEN THE PARTIES.
ELDRIDGE and RAKER, JJ, dissent.