Strawhorn v. Strawhorn

451 A.2d 665, 52 Md. App. 614, 1982 Md. App. LEXIS 374
CourtCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland
DecidedNovember 3, 1982
DocketNo. 1135
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 451 A.2d 665 (Strawhorn v. Strawhorn) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Special Appeals of Maryland primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Strawhorn v. Strawhorn, 451 A.2d 665, 52 Md. App. 614, 1982 Md. App. LEXIS 374 (Md. Ct. App. 1982).

Opinion

Mason, J.,

delivered the opinion of the Court.

In Strawhorn v. Strawhorn, 49 Md. App. 649 (1981), we held, among other things, that the chancellor did not err in awarding exclusive possession and use of the family home to Janet P. Strawhorn and her minor child of a former marriage, under § 3-6A-06 (a) of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article. After granting certiorari in this case, the Court of Appeals deferred action on the matter pending disposition of the case of Donald L. Bledsoe v. Pamela J. Bledsoe, No. 98, S.T. 1981. On 9 August 1982, the case of Bledsoe was decided, and the Court of Appeals held that under § 3-6A-06 (a) of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings [615]*615Article, a court can only award exclusive use and possession of the family home to a spouse with custody of a natural or adopted child, and that a stepchild (such as in Strawhom) is not included within the scope of the statute.

In a per curiam order dated 13 September 1982, the Court of Appeals vacated the judgment of this Court in Strawhom and remanded the case for further proceedings in light of its opinion in Bledsoe. Pursuant to this order, we modify our opinion in Strawhom to the extent it conflicts with Bledsoe and hold that the chancellor erred as a matter of law in awarding exclusive use and possession of the family home to Janet P. Strawhom and her minor child of a former marriage.

Order affirmed in part and reversed in part; case remanded for further proceedings on the issue of alimony; costs to be divided equally between the parties.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Kilsheimer v. Davis
665 A.2d 723 (Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, 1995)
Rush v. McNett
43 Pa. D. & C.3d 119 (Greene County Court of Common Pleas, 1986)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
451 A.2d 665, 52 Md. App. 614, 1982 Md. App. LEXIS 374, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/strawhorn-v-strawhorn-mdctspecapp-1982.