## Facts

- Charles E. Cote and Paula R. Cote were married and jointly owned their marital residence.
- A domestic dispute occurred at the home on September 17, 1990; the details were contested in later proceedings.
- On September 20, 1990, Charles filed a complaint for limited divorce in the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County.
- On the same day, Paula filed a Petition for Protection from Domestic Violence in the District Court of Maryland for Prince George’s County.
- Around October 1, 1990, the District Court issued a protective order barring Charles from entering the marital home.
- On September 21, 1990, the circuit court entered a consent order enjoining both parties from hitting, striking, or assaulting one another.
- With the District Court protective order set to expire on October 31, 1990, Paula sought continued exclusion of Charles from the home through the circuit court.
- On October 30, 1990, Paula filed a motion for an ex parte injunction in the circuit court; the court granted ex parte relief on November 1, 1990.
- After an evidentiary hearing on November 7, 1990, the circuit court continued the exclusionary relief and later issued an injunction (dated November 21, 1990) barring Charles—a co-owner—from entering the marital residence.
- Charles appealed, arguing that the circuit court lacked authority to exclude a co-owner spouse from the home and that the exclusion order was an unconstitutional taking without just compensation.

## Issues

1. Whether a circuit court, in the divorce/domestic-violence context, has authority to enjoin a spouse from entering a marital residence that the spouses co-own.
2. Whether an injunction barring a co-owner spouse from the marital home constitutes a taking of property requiring just compensation.

## Decision

- The Court of Special Appeals of Maryland held that the circuit court had authority to issue an injunction excluding Charles from the co-owned marital residence in the circumstances presented.
- The court held the exclusion order was not an unconstitutional taking because it did not deprive Charles of all beneficial use of his property.
- The court affirmed the circuit court’s power to issue the injunction but remanded for reconsideration because the November 21, 1990 injunction appeared, on its face, to be indefinite and potentially too broad.

## Legal Principles

- A compensable taking requires: (1) state action, (2) an effect on a constitutionally protected property interest, and (3) deprivation of all beneficial use of the property.
- A court-issued injunction constitutes state action and can affect a co-owner’s possessory interest without necessarily amounting to a taking.
- Temporary exclusion from a co-owned marital home, entered as protective relief during domestic-relations litigation, is not a taking when the excluded spouse retains ownership and is not deprived of all beneficial use (including continued economic value and later division or sale).
- Even when a court has authority to exclude a spouse from the home, the order should be limited in scope and duration to what is justified by the record; an injunction that appears indefinite warrants further review.

## Conclusion

The Court of Special Appeals of Maryland upheld the circuit court’s authority to bar a co-owner spouse from entering the marital residence during divorce-related domestic-violence proceedings and rejected the claim that the order was an uncompensated taking, but it remanded for the trial court to reconsider the breadth and seemingly indefinite duration of the injunction.


Cote v. Cote, 599 A.2d 869 (1992)