## Facts

- Eleanor K. Rosenberg and Henry A. Rosenberg, Jr. married in 1952, had three children (all emancipated by the divorce), and separated in 1981 when Henry left intending to end the marriage.
- The trial court found Henry committed adultery on numerous occasions during the marriage; it found Eleanor committed adultery once after separation.
- The parties lived at an exceptionally high standard of living supported largely by Henry’s wealth and income.
- Much of Henry’s wealth was tied to interests in a closely held family company (ATAPCO) and related holdings; significant portions were acquired by gift or inheritance.
- During the marriage, the parties allocated roles such that Henry focused on his business career while Eleanor assumed primary responsibility for child-rearing, household management, and extensive social obligations connected to Henry’s work.
- The trial court granted an absolute divorce and entered financial orders including a substantial monetary award, annual alimony of $275,000 (terminable on death or remarriage), sale of the marital residence with allocation of proceeds, and payment by Henry of Eleanor’s counsel fees and litigation costs.
- Evidence showed Henry made transfers benefiting a girlfriend, including an interest-free loan and cash advances, which the trial court treated as dissipation affecting the marital estate.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court correctly classified and valued assets as marital or non-marital, including gifted or inherited business interests and related financial interests.
2. Whether certain transfers and expenditures constituted dissipation (fraud on marital rights) and could be treated as part of the marital estate when determining equitable relief.
3. Whether the amounts and structure of the monetary award and the alimony award reflected proper consideration of Maryland’s statutory factors.
4. Whether the award of counsel fees and litigation expenses to Eleanor was within the trial court’s discretion.

## Decision

- The appellate court largely affirmed the trial court’s property classification and valuation determinations.
- The court affirmed treating the interest foregone on an interest-free loan and cash advances to a girlfriend as dissipation and including those amounts in the marital estate for purposes of the monetary award.
- The court affirmed the monetary award (including a minimum total of at least $1,520,000 with a potential adjustment tied to proceeds from the marital residence).
- The court affirmed the alimony award of $275,000 per year, terminable upon death or remarriage.
- The court affirmed the award of Eleanor’s counsel fees and litigation expenses.

## Legal Principles

- Under Maryland’s marital property statute, marital property generally includes property acquired during marriage other than property acquired by inheritance or gift from a third party or excluded by valid agreement.
- A court may use a monetary award to achieve an equitable adjustment between spouses after determining and valuing marital property, considering statutory factors such as the parties’ contributions and economic circumstances.
- A spouse’s non-economic contributions (including homemaking, child-rearing, and supporting the other spouse’s career) may justify substantial equitable financial relief.
- Dissipation of marital assets may be treated as fraud on marital rights; amounts dissipated may be included in valuing the marital estate to prevent a spouse from defeating equitable distribution through intentional depletion.
- Awards of alimony and counsel fees are committed to the trial court’s discretion, including consideration of the marital standard of living, the length of the marriage, disparity in resources, and ability to pay.

## Conclusion

The appellate court upheld extensive financial relief in a high-net-worth divorce, concluding that the trial court properly distinguished marital from non-marital property, could include dissipated assets in the marital estate, and acted within its discretion in setting a substantial monetary award, long-term alimony, and counsel fees based on statutory equitable factors and the parties’ economic disparity.


Rosenberg v. Rosenberg, 497 A.2d 485 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1985)