Aubrey Burton, Jr. averages approximately two to three court appearances each week.  The following blurbs are from some recent cases resolved by Mr. Burton.

 

October, 2007

Aubrey Burton, Jr. persuades the court to disregard the suggestion of the Best Interest Attorney (formally referred to as a guardian ad litem) and child's therapist, both of whom recommended supervised visits for Mr. Burton's client. In this case, Mr. Burton prevailed against three attorneys seeking to restrict the parental rights of Mr. Burton's military service member client.  Ultimately, Mr. Burton succeeded in obtaining custody for his client.

July, 2007

Aubrey Burton, Jr. upholds the rights of an aggrieved father whose parental rights were usurped by an unjust custody order and finding of contempt.  Once Mr. Burton entered the case, he successfully compelled the court to vacate finding of contempt and rescind the custody order.

April, 2007

Aubrey Burton, Jr. does the unthinkable: obtain custody for a client that was not related the the child, over the objections of a parent that the court considered to be a fit parent!

October, 2006

Aubrey Burton, Jr. successfully reduces a non-custodial parent’s child support arrears from over $43,000.00 to less than half in the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County.  Notably, Maryland law does not permit the reduction.

September, 2006

Aubrey Burton, Jr. was awarded $6,000.00 in attorneys fees in a custody and child support case in the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County.

July, 2006

Aubrey Burton, Jr. lectures and provides instruction at the Prince George’s County Pro Se Family Clinic.  The Pro Se Clinic is a program designed to help county residents obtain information concerning family law matters.

April, 2006

Wells v. Wells, 168 Md.App. 382, 896 A.2d 1082 (2006)

Aubrey Burton, Jr. appealed a decision by the Chief Judge of the Circuit Court for Charles County.  In Wells v. Wells, Aubrey Burton, Jr. successfully defended a wife’s rights after she alleged that her husband tricked her into not participating in a divorce proceeding, thereby preventing her from obtaining custody, child support, and her share of pension and property.  Following an appeal before the Court of Special Appeals, the second highest court in the State of Maryland, the Court determined that Aubrey Burton Jr.’s appeal was meritorious.  As a result, the case was remanded back to the Circuit Court for Charles County, in accordance with Aubrey Burton, Jr.’s request.

****
On April 21, 2006, The Daily Record, a business and legal newspaper serving the business and legal community in Maryland, featured an article concerning the Wells v. Wells ruling.  The paper deemed the case as the “Secret Divorce Case.”

November, 2005

Aubrey Burton, Jr. sought in banc review of a ruling in the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County, wherein the trial judge erred by awarding a final protective order under circumstances in violation of the Family Law Code, United States Constitution, and the Maryland Declaration of Rights.  In banc review is a mechanism in which a three judge panel reviews a trial judge’s decision for errors in law and discretion.

August, 2005

Aubrey Burton, Jr. awarded over $22,000.00 in attorney’s fees in a case involving a cheating spouse’s fraudulent transfer of a marital home, in the Circuit Court for Calvert County.

 

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN MARYLAND LAW

July, 2006 - Ricketts v. Ricketts 393 Md. 479, 903 (2006).  The Court of Appeals, the highest court in Maryland, determined that a party is entitled to a limited divorce on the grounds of constructive desertion even when the parties continue to reside in the same household, provided that there is an unjustifiable termination of marital relations.

October, 2006 – Family Law Article § 8-205(a)(2).  This provision authorizes the court to transfer ownership of an interest in jointly owned property that was used as the principal residence of the parties during their marriage, to either spouse, subject to terms of a lien. This provision is extremely important, particularly since before this provision, Maryland courts did not have the authority to transfer jointly titled real property from one spouse to the other.