section 3-6 monetary award in Maryland

1985Rather, in characterizing property as marital or non-marital under § 3-6A-05(a), the appropriate analysis to be applied is the source of funds theory enunciated in Harper [v. Harper, 294 Md. 54 , 448 A.2d 916 (1982)]. 300 Md. at 271-72 , 477 A.2d 1163 . 5 Under an appropriate analysis, the “characterization of property as nonmarital or marital depends upon the source of the contributions as payments are made, rather than the time at which legal or equitable title to or possession of the property is obtained.” Id., 300 Md. at 270 , 477 A.2d 1163 .

1985Rather, in characterizing property as marital or non-marital under § 3-6A-05(a), the appropriate analysis to be applied is the source of funds theory enunciated in Harper [v. Harper, 294 Md. 54 , 448 A.2d 916 (1982)]. 300 Md. at 271-72 , 477 A.2d 1163 . 5 Under an appropriate analysis, the “characterization of property as nonmarital or marital depends upon the source of the contributions as payments are made, rather than the time at which legal or equitable title to or possession of the property is obtained.” Id., 300 Md. at 270 , 477 A.2d 1163 .

1985(See Ayars v. Ayars, 50 Md.App. 93 , at Pg. 96 [ 436 A.2d 490 ].) There was no testimony in this case to rebut the presumption that the 1960 transfer constituted a gift. *565 These determinations violate the rule recently established in Grant v. Zich, 300 Md. 256 , 477 A.2d 1163 (1984): when characterizing property as marital or nonmarital under § 3-6A-05(a) for the purpose of granting a monetary award under § 3-6A-05(b), a presumption of gift does not arise from the titling of property as tenants by the entirety.

1985(See Ayars v. Ayars, 50 Md.App. 93 , at Pg. 96 [ 436 A.2d 490 ].) There was no testimony in this case to rebut the presumption that the 1960 transfer constituted a gift. *565 These determinations violate the rule recently established in Grant v. Zich, 300 Md. 256 , 477 A.2d 1163 (1984): when characterizing property as marital or nonmarital under § 3-6A-05(a) for the purpose of granting a monetary award under § 3-6A-05(b), a presumption of gift does not arise from the titling of property as tenants by the entirety.

1984Grant v. Zich, 53 Md.App. 610, 614 , 456 A.2d 75 (1983), cert. granted, 296 Md. 110 (1983); Ward v. Ward, 52 Md.App. 336 , 449 A.2d 443 (1982).

1984Grant v. Zich, 53 Md.App. 610, 614 , 456 A.2d 75 (1983), cert. granted, 296 Md. 110 (1983); Ward v. Ward, 52 Md.App. 336 , 449 A.2d 443 (1982).

1984The Court of Special Appeals concluded that, as a result of this error, the trial court did not properly determine “what was marital property” or “the value of the marital property” and was therefore “without authority to make a discretionary monetary award under § 3-6A-05(b).” Grant, 53 Md.App. at 616 , 456 A.2d at 79 .

1984The Court of Special Appeals concluded that, as a result of this error, the trial court did not properly determine “what was marital property” or “the value of the marital property” and was therefore “without authority to make a discretionary monetary award under § 3-6A-05(b).” Grant, 53 Md.App. at 616 , 456 A.2d at 79 .

1982Ohm v. Ohm, 49 Md.

1982Appellant argues that this remedial legislation should be liberally construed to effectuate its beneficent purposes, and that if the statute be so construed, the circuit court should have issued the requested injunction to protect her interest in the lump sum pension payment (marital property subject to a monetary award under § 3-6A-05 of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article, Deering v. Deering, 292 Md. 115 , 437 A.2d 883 (1981).

1982Appellant argues that this remedial legislation should be liberally construed to effectuate its beneficent purposes, and that if the statute be so construed, the circuit court should have issued the requested injunction to protect her interest in the lump sum pension payment (marital property subject to a monetary award under § 3-6A-05 of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article, Deering v. Deering, 292 Md. 115 , 437 A.2d 883 (1981).