Tuesday, May 31, 2011

Are You Being Sued?

Are you being sued?  If a civil lawsuit has been filed against you by a creditor or collection agency, my law office can provide you with representation.  Once you have received the Summons and Complaint, it is important for you to respond.  Should you fail to respond appropriately it is likely that judgment will be entered against you followed by post-judgment collection process proceedings.

I am licensed to practice in Maryland, District of Columbia, and Florida as well as the federal courts in those jurisdictions.  I have represented individuals, like you, who need legal assistance.  I have years of varied legal experience in defending lawsuits and resolving problems.

If a complaint has been filed against you, I can help.  If you are reluctant to answer your own phone because of harassing calls from creditors, I can help.  If you have found it difficult to meet your financial obligations and have been unable to persuade your creditors to work with you to resolve your debt, I can help.

I practice in the areas of: Debtors’ Rights, Bankruptcy, Consumer Law, Mortgage Loss Mitigation, Divorce & Family Law, Wills & Estates Law, Traffic & DUI/DWI, and Immigration.  If you are interested in resolving your case effectively and efficiently at a fair cost, with an experienced attorney, please consider my law office.  I am available to meet with you in Baltimore County, Montgomery County, Prince George’s County, or downtown in the District of Columbia.

I may be reached at (301) 325-3322 or (301) 262-7353.    


Camille R. McBride, Esquire

Thursday, May 26, 2011

Debtors’ Rights: Some General Information About Dealing With Creditors

           One of the most stressful situations in life is dealing with creditors and debt collectors who are demanding payment for money that is owed.  It is even more stressful when you owe money to several creditors.  Stress and frustration results when you borrow money from a person or entity and you do not or cannot honor your financial obligations.  

            You are called a “debtor” if you owe money to an individual or a corporate entity.  The “creditor” is the individual or corporate entity that you owe.  The creditor may sue you and attempt to collect what is owed if there is a judgment against you.  However, debtors have rights.  Collection activity is regulated by both the state and federal government. Collectors are not allowed to harass you by engaging in unlawful practices such as the following:

·                   Calling at hours that are defined as unreasonable under state law.

  • Threatening violence.
  • Threatening criminal prosecution, unless the debtor has violated a criminal statute.
  • Threatening to tell your employer and neighbors.
  • Using intimidating, abusive, and offensive language.

         If you believe your rights have been violated, contact an attorney immediately.  You should hire a professional with legal training if you want to be successful in an unfair debt collection practice claim.  Now, this does not mean that the creditor cannot sue you.  It deals with the unlawful collection activity and not the debt that you may owe.

          Before the creditor or collection agency files a Complaint against you, they will typically contact you by telephone and in writing in order to get you to pay.  Any written notice from them should contain the following:

  • The name and address of the collection agency.
  • The amount of the debt, stating the original debt and a breakdown of other costs or interest.
  • The name of the creditor to whom the debt is owed.
  • The collection agency’s account or file number and the creditor’s account number, if that is the case.
  • A statement that unless you dispute the debt within a certain time after you receive the notice, the creditor or collection agency will assume the debt is valid.
  • A statement that, if requested within a certain time, the collector will provide the name of the original creditor, if different from the collector.
  • A statement that if you dispute the debt, the creditor or collection agency will get verification of the debt and mail it to you.  

          If you do not believe that you are responsible for the debt, you should dispute it in writing.  Some defenses include: 1) the debt has already been paid; 2) a third-party was responsible for paying the debt and you have proof; 3) it is not your debt; 4) the statute of limitations defense; and 5) the amount is incorrect because of a computational error.  

          If a civil lawsuit has been filed against you by the creditor or collection agency, consider hiring a lawyer.   Once you have received the Summons and Complaint, it is important for you to respond within the time specified on the Summons.  Should you fail to respond appropriately it is likely that judgment will be entered against you followed by post-judgment collection process proceedings to include garnishing the debtor’s bank account, wages, seizing the debtor’s personal property or real estate, serving the debtor with written discovery to locate assets, and even holding the debtor in contempt for any failure to comply with court orders.     

          A lawyer can help you protect certain kinds of property from being taken to collect a debt.  A lawyer can advise you on whether Bankruptcy may be a good option.  Let a trained legal professional in your area represent you so you can get on with the rest of your life.

Legal Disclaimer:   The informational content presented in my blog should not be used as a resource or considered legal advice.  These are my thoughts, and you should seek advice from a lawyer admitted to practice in the state where you reside. 

Tuesday, May 10, 2011

What If I Feel I Am Unable to Survive Financially During the Divorce Proceedings?

If you believe that you do not have enough money to live on during the proceedings, and your spouse earns enough money to support you financially, you can seek a hearing on temporary relief.  The court can order your spouse to pay you during the pendency of the proceedings.  There are various forms of temporary relief from the court; however, this discussion will address temporary alimony/spousal support/maintenance.
            You can ask for temporary financial support when you file your complaint or petition or you can request it by motion after you file your initial pleadings.  However, you should ask your attorney to discuss with you the practical aspects before you file.  A temporary relief hearing is a mini-trial.  Temporary relief that is unlikely to be granted should not be requested.  It may look like the request was not filed in good faith, and it is a waste of judicial resources.  It may also set the tone of the case, so avoid it if unnecessary and focus on other matters that are worthy of attention. 

            Generally, the court can order temporary alimony if one souse has a need and the other spouse has the ability to pay.  The court has wide discretion in awarding temporary alimony, and it may take into consideration the standard of living during the marriage and marital misconduct such as adultery and domestic violence, among other factors.  Financial disclosure is needed for the court to order an award.  A financial statement detailing monthly expenses with accompanying pay subs, W2s, and tax returns should be produced by both spouses to aid the court in making a determination.  The spouse seeking relief to preserve the status quo during divorce proceedings, for example, making sure necessary household expenses are paid, must present evidence of income and expenses.  Again, this is a temporary order, and the spouse in need should not rely on receiving the same amount at the time the divorce. 

Saturday, April 16, 2011

Green Card Renewal

A Lawful Permanent Resident (LPR) needs a Green Card to live and work in the United States.   Now, this is not to say that if a LPR’s Green Card is expired then he/she has lost their Permanent Resident status.  A loss of status is accomplished if the person voluntarily gave up their status or acted in a way that is contrary to one who wants to be a LPR of the United States, such as returning to their country of origin, indefinitely and/or permanently. 

Once a Green Card has been issued, it is valid for 10 years.  The expiration date is printed on the front side of card. Upon expiration, it must be renewed because it serves as identification.  The Green Card is official documentation of LPR status.  Without the Green Card, it is difficult to prove permanent residency, and this affects one’s ability to travel or to prove eligibility to work in the United States.

To renew the Green Card, a LPR must complete and file Form I-90 with USCIS.   A LPR can only file the renewal application if his/her card expires within the next six months or the card has actually expired.   

It is important to note that a Conditional Resident (CR) is not a LPR.   For example, if a foreign national became a CR through a marriage to a United States Citizen or LPR, and the marriage is less than two years old at the time residence is granted, the foreign national will receive conditional resident status with the conditional residence card expiring in two years.  The spouse-petitioner files Form I-751 to remove the conditions 90 days prior to the expiration date on the conditional residence card. Once the conditions are removed, the CR becomes a LPR.  After 10 years, the Green Card will expire and he/she will file the I-90.

Bottom Line: Pay attention to the expiration date, and seek the advice of an attorney if you have questions and your case and need help with the process.    

Friday, April 15, 2011

The Noncostodial Parent and Visitation

When a noncustodial parent is awarded visitation and is ordered to pay child support but he/she fails to pay child support, the custodial parent SHALL NOT refuse to honor the noncustodial parent’s visitation rights. 

            Also, when a custodial parent refuses to honor the noncustodial parent’s visitation rights without cause, the noncustodial parent MUST continue to honor his/her obligation to pay child support.

            The noncustodial parent who is not allowed access to his/her child should file a Motion for Contempt and Sanctions.  

The same goes for the custodial parent where he/she should file a Motion for Contempt and Sanctions if the obligor/noncustodial parent failed to pay child support.    

Bottom Line:  The noncustodial parent has a right to see his/her child. The custodial parent has a duty to promote frequent and continuing contact with the other parent even if the noncustodial parent has not paid child support.  The child should not be held “hostage for a ransom”.

Monday, April 11, 2011

Child Support

It is important that the parties in a divorce or family law case involving minor and dependent children understand the basics of child support.  

            Child support belongs to the minor child.  Neither party should be able to waive the child’s right to financial support.  The parties may contract between themselves as to who will assume certain obligations such as school uniforms or Summer camp, but should not contract away child support.  Note, parties do not have to provide child support pursuant to the state guidelines if there is a substitute obligation in lieu of the guidelines, for example monthly private school tuition and other expenses. 

            Bottom line:  It is all about the child, and not the adults.  The purpose is to improve the child’s quality of life and provide for the child’s needs. 

Monday, March 7, 2011


Many jurisdictions require completion of mediation before a final hearing on the merits.  If there is a history of violence between the parties, mediation may not be feasible.  Absent domestic violence, mediation is an effective tool in divorce and family law practice.  Most cases filed are settled through mediation.

Unfortunately, one or both parties may be too angry to participate in the mediation.  Please understand that BOTH parties have to be willing to resolve their issues.  You cannot force someone to mediate. 

However, reaching an agreement may present a win-win situation.  You won’t have to deal with the stress of a trial, and it is less expensive than going to trial.  So, talk to your attorney about mediation. 

  • Have your attorney educate you on mediation.
  • Be open to it.
  • Consult your attorney about the case outline and inquire into the other party’s position on facts and legal issues.
  • Write out an outline of your major issues.
  • Gather updated financial information, such as the financial affidavit and provide updated financial documents, i.e. most recent paystubs.
  • Have a mediation notebook prepared with documentation supporting the value of each major asset or liability. 
  • Have an idea of what kind of custody/child access schedule you’ve had in place or the schedule that you would like to have.
  • Bring in any prior written agreements on any of the issues.
Again, keep an open mind.  Mediation is quite helpful.  It opens up communication between the parties and can set a tone of cooperation and resolving current and future disputes. 

If you do not have attorney involvement and can reach an agreement on your own, make sure it is reduced to writing and signed by both of you. 

Legal Disclaimer:   The informational content presented in my blog should not be used as a resource or considered legal advice.  These are my thoughts, and you should seek advice from a divorce and family law professional in the state where you reside. 

Monday, February 28, 2011

Is This Your First Visit To a Family Law Attorney’s Office? What You Need to Know.

We are not clairvoyant, and we cannot help unless you give us all the facts.   We understand that you may be nervous, embarrassed and maybe a little bit angry.  We get it.  However, we cannot read minds and, we don’t do well with the rambling either.  Before you first visit, write down the facts and write down your questions.  Now, I would say it takes two to tango.  Don’t just focus on what the other party did to ruin the marriage.  Tell us everything so we can properly advise you and prepare to meet evidence offered by the other side.  Nothing can be more catastrophic than to have opposing counsel know something about you that we do not know.  Be open and honest, so we can protect you.  It is our duty to keep your confidences. 

Many spouses know little about the household finances, bank accounts, taxes, and even the mortgage.  I have represented clients who knew nothing about the other party’s income.  If you do not know, you don’t know but don’t just sit around and not try to obtain this information before you see us.  Make a diligent effort to get some of this information.

If you are contemplating a divorce, please do not look for us to tell you whether or not you should proceed with a divorce.  We are not in your marriage, and you have to make that decision.  You have to do what is right for you and your family.  We are counselors at law, only.  We are not marriage counselors, mental health counselors, or members of the clergy.   

Most people who are heading to Family Court because of divorce, separation, or custody tend to share the experience with family, friends, co-workers, or casual acquaintances who usually give advice, based on their experience (or give advice based on no experience at all, unfortunately).   You can seek emotional support, but try to use discretion.   Your “friends” may have to show up in court to disclose embarrassing facts about you.   It happens!   So, watch what you say, watch what you do as well.  We are the professionals.  So, be careful when your associates/friends/so-called counselors tell you how you should handle your business.  Every case is different, and their experiences cannot compare to yours.   Please do not tell the attorney at the initial consultation what your cousin told you. 

If you are seeking to hire an attorney in private practice, expect that you will have to pay attorney fees.  You should already know how you are going to pay for legal services and have a plan in place to obtain the fees prior to the meeting.  The attorney may not disclose fees when you make an appointment, but be aware that Divorce and Family Law attorneys do not work on a contingency basis. 

These are a few suggestions that I believe are important for relieving some of the anxiety that most experience during this stage of the game.  Remember that we understand, and we do want to help.    

Legal Disclaimer:   The informational content presented in my blog should not be used as a resource or considered legal advice.  These are my thoughts, and you should seek advice from a divorce and family law professional in the state where you reside. 

Monday, February 14, 2011

Divorce and Dissipation of Marital Assets

I recently received a copy of an Opinion issued by the Maryland Court of Appeals in regard to a case where I represented the Appellee.   

The Legal Issue:  Whether the Appellee’s use of money she saved during the marriage constitutes dissipation.  

Legal Definition of Dissipation:  The wasting of marital assets through extravagant spending including spending on a paramour, gambling, hiding of assets, or fraudulent conveyance to third parties.

Some Relevant Case Law:  “Dissipation may be found where one spouse uses marital property for his or her own benefit for a purpose unrelated to the marriage at a time where the marriage is undergoing an irreconcilable breakdown.” Sharp v. Sharp, 58 Md.App. 386, 401, 473 A.2d 499 (1984).

Background:  Appellee was in an abusive marriage and saved money and spent money on the parties’ baby, healthcare insurance, necessary household expenses, attorney fees, etc.  We argued that there was no dissipation.  The doctrine of dissipation of assets was developed to prevent economic misconduct that would negatively affect an equitable distribution of marital assets.  The Circuit Court denied Appellant’s claim that there was dissipation.  The Court of Appeals affirmed.
Here is the Court’s opinion: 

Court of Appeals of Maryland.
Colonel A. OMAYAKA
Josephine O. OMAYAKA.

No. 111, Sept. Term, 2008.
Jan. 24, 2011.

Background: Wife filed for divorce. The Circuit Court, Prince George's County, granted divorce and denied husband's counter-claim for dissipation of marital assets. Husband appealed. The Court of Appeals issued a writ of certiorari on its own initiative.

Holdings: The Court of Appeals, Murphy, J., held that:
(1) circuit court was not clearly erroneous in finding that wife adequately explained where the funds that she withdrew from her bank accounts went, and
(2) the ultimate burden of persuasion remains on the party who claims that the other party has dissipated marital assets.


The parties to this appeal from the Circuit Court for Prince George's County, Colonel A. Omayaka (Appellant) and Josephine O. Omayaka (Appellee), were married on October 2, 1998, and were divorced by a judgment signed at the conclusion of a July 5, 2007 hearing. After that judgment was entered on July 10, 2007, Appellant noted an appeal to the Court of Special Appeals, and filed a brief in which he presented a single argument:

Appellant made a prima facie case and carried his burden of showing dissipation of marital assets during the pendency of the divorce[.]

In the words of the brief filed by Appellee:

Appellant failed to carry his burden of proof showing a dissipation of marital assets during the pendency of the divorce proceeding, where Appellee did not expend or move marital funds while the marriage was undergoing an irreconcilable breakdown with the principal purpose of reducing the funds available for equitable distribution, but rather, Appellee saved funds to use for family and household expenses.

Before these arguments were presented to a panel of the Court of Special Appeals, this Court issued a writ of certiorari on its own initiative. 406 Md. 443, 959 A.2d 792 (2008). For the reasons that follow, we shall affirm the judgment of the Circuit Court.

On January 24, 2007, Appellee filed an “AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DIVORCE” that included the following assertions:

5. [Appellee] and [Appellant] did voluntarily agree to live separate and apart on or about May 31, 2005, and have voluntarily lived separate and apart without cohabitation and without interruption since said date. There is no reasonable hope or expectation of reconciliation.

6. All property issues between the parties have been resolved.

On February 23, 2007, Appellant filed an “ANSWER TO AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR ABSOLUTE DIVORCE” and a “COUNTER-COMPLAINT FOR ABSOLUTE DIVORCE AND OTHER RELIEF.” Appellant's Answer included the following assertions:

[Appellant] denies that all property issues between the parties have been resolved. Indeed, upon the refinance and conveyance of the parties' marital home on or about April 28th 2006, the parties understood that any proceeds due the [Appellee] would be paid into a trust account set up by [Appellee]'s counsel because [Appellee] had, without [Appellant]'s knowledge and approval, transferred about $80,000.00 in martial funds. In a subsequent communication, [Appellee]'s counsel noted that he had released all but $40,00000 to the [Appellee] and that the rest was to be kept in escrow according to the agreement of the parties. To date, no accounting has been made with respect to how much money [Appellee] took and/or how it was spent.

Appellant's Counter-Complaint included the following assertions and requests:

11. [Appellant] did refinance the marital home. Pursuant to an agreement between the parties, [Appellee]'s counsel was to place her share of the proceeds in an escrow account until she had accounted for the transfer of marital funds in the amount of $80,000.00. By a June 13th 2006 communication, the parties understood that [Appellee]'s counsel was to release all but $40,000.00 to her and would provide an accounting of what, if anything, was taken and how the marital money was spent. To date[,] no such accounting has been provided.

*2 12. [Appellee] has clearly dissipated the marital funds, these funds were transferred during the pendency of litigation and not spent for any family use purposes. Indeed some of these funds were wired to an overseas bank account and/or persons that [Appellant] is not aware of or was privy to.

WHEREFORE, the [Appellant] requests that the Court:

a. Grant him an absolute divorce from the [Appellee];

b. Have [Appellee] ... account for any dissipation of any marital assets, including funds in bank accounts;

c. Determine the value of marital property of the parties, and make a monetary award to [Appellant] after adjusting the parties' rights in the marital property[;]

d. Reduce to a judgment in favor of [Appellant] against the [Appellee][;]

e. Order [Appellee] to pay attorney's fees, court costs and suit money[.]

During a contentious July 5, 2007 hearing, which was punctuated with several sharp exchanges, Appellant's counsel called Appellee as Appellant's first witness on his Counter-Complaint. Appellee's testimony included the concessions that (1) while married to Appellant, she opened two bank accounts in her name only, and (2) from March of 2005 through December of that year, she made “over the counter” withdrawals of approximately $80,000.00 from those accounts. Appellee, however, denied the allegation that she “dissipated” marital funds. The following transpired during Appellee's testimony:

[Appellant's Counsel]: Q ... Did you discuss with [Appellant] how you [spent] the money from these withdrawals?

A When we lived together, each one of us had our own account. So the way I spend my money, I spend my own money, and he just spent his own money. The only joint account that we had is where we used to pay our bills. That's the only account I could take the money out-you know, we could discuss it before anyone takes the money out.

[Appellant's Counsel]: Q Did you spend any of this money, ma‘am, for the family?

A Yes.

[Appellant's Counsel]: Q What did you spend any of these monies for?

A I spend on clothing, I spend on food, I spend on health insurance that I bought for my baby, you know, from Kaiser. I spend on the rent. I spent paying all the credit card debt I had. I spend on the car note. I spend on food[, on] grocery. I spent some money-you know, I have two kids back home. I sent the money to them as I used to do when we used to live together. I spend on the babysitter, too.

At the conclusion of all of the evidence, the Circuit Court announced its decision to (1) grant Appellee an absolute divorce from Appellant, and (2) deny Appellant's counter-claim for dissipation. The following transpired during the Circuit Court's on-the-record analysis of Appellant's dissipation claim:

THE COURT: So then the question becomes what, if anything, is to be done about an allegation and countercomplaint about dissipation of marital assets? I can suggest to you the burden is on Mr. Omayaka in that regard. And while there has been evidence presented that Ms. Omayaka spent substantial sums of money during the marriage, the only testimony as to where the money went is for household goods, mortgages, clothes, to pay off credit card debt, and to send money to her minor children, somewhere.

*3 The issue is, was the money spent for his or her own benefit or purpose unrelated to the marriage at the time when the marriage is undergoing an irreconcilable breakdown. I don't find that that burden has been met.

Accordingly, the first step is not met. If it had been met then the testimony, once again, is that the money is spent for purposes (unintelligible) purposes would be appropriate under the circumstances.

The Court cannot find that there has been a dissipation of assets.

There's also a question of contributions-or source of the funds for those assets. There was one sentence of possible testimony in that regard, and that was that she was-two sentences, we'll say-putting money aside for the future, and she was working at the time. And her testimony with regard to her income is such that it would have been-a reasonable inference would suggest that the money could not have come solely from her work, because [of] the amounts involved.

So I'm going to deny the counterplaintiff's action with regard to dissipation of assets. That leaves no other issue with regard to marital property before the Court. Accordingly, no monetary award will be made.

* * *

[APPELLANT'S COUNSEL]: ... Your Honor, ... for dissipation-you're putting all the burden on us.

THE COURT: I think I just explained that I did not believe that you had made a case. That's not a “prima facie” case. We are at the conclusion of all of the evidence. So it's not a question of a “prima facie” case. The question is, did he meet the burden? And I suggested that he didn't meet the threshold question. And then I went on to say that even accepting that he did meet it, then the next question is, does she explain adequately where the funds went? And I found that she had.

[APPELLANT'S COUNSEL]: But she didn't put on any evidence, Your Honor, about how the money was spent.

THE COURT: She did. She said that she spent it on her credit cards, her $5,000 loan, her clothing, food, mortgage, sent to the other two children; she went through a whole litany of that.

[APPELLANT'S COUNSEL]: ... There's no evidence in the record that she spent the money for what she said.

THE COURT: There is evidence. I heard her say so under oath from the stand.

[APPELLANT'S COUNSEL]: There's no corroborating evidence, Your Honor.

THE COURT: I don't recall in the [C]ode where that testimony needs to be corroborated. If you can give me a case that requires that, I'll be happy to look at it.

[APPELLANT'S COUNSEL]: All right, Your Honor.

Appellant now requests (in the words of his brief), “that this Court vacate the judgment of no dissipation and remand the case with instructions to the Circuit Court to enter a Judgment in favor of the Appellant.”

Only four cases are included in the TABLE OF CITATIONS found in Appellant's brief: Sharp v. Sharp, 58 Md.App. 386, [473 A.2d 499] (1984); Chaote v. Chaote, 97 Md.App. 347, 629 A.2d 1304 (1993); Jeffcoat v. Jeffcoat, 102 Md.App. 301, 649 A.2d 1137 (1994); and Beck v. Beck, 112 Md.App. 197, [684 A.2d 878] (1996). Only Sharp, Chaote, and Jeffcoat are cited in Appellee's brief. The parties agree that “[d]issipation [occurs] where one spouse uses marital property for his or her own benefit for a purpose unrelated to the marriage at a time where the marriage is undergoing an irreconcilable breakdown.” Sharp, supra, 58 Md.App. at 401, 473 A.2d at 506. While we must determine whether this kind of dissipation has been proven in the case at bar, we note that dissipation may occur on occasions in which (1) the marriage is not undergoing an irreconcilable breakdown,and/or (2) the dissipating spouse's principal purpose was a purpose other than the purpose “of reducing the amount of funds that would be available for equitable distribution at the time of the divorce.” Welsh v. Welsh, 135 Md.App. 29, 51, 761 A.2d 949, 961 (2000). Dissipation occurs when “marital assets were taken by one spouse without agreement by the other spouse.” John F. Fader, II & Richard J. Gilbert, Maryland Family Law, § 15-10 (4th ed.2006).

*4 In Solomon v. Solomon, 383 Md. 176, 857 A.2d 1109 (2004), this Court stated:

Maryland common law first addressed a husband's dissipation of marital property quite a long time ago. Feigley v. Feigley, 7 Md. 537, 561 (1855) (observing that a husband's right to freely alienate property at the expense of supporting his wife is valid, “provided he does so bona fide, and with no design of defrauding her of her just claims upon him and his estate.”). Dissipation of marital assets, as with many issues in the field of family law, has not been considered much of late by this Court. The majority of modern reported cases developing the doctrine of intentional dissipation of marital assets has been reported by the Court of Special Appeals.

A trial court's judgment regarding dissipation is a factual one and, therefore, is reviewed under a clearly erroneous standard. “If there is any competent evidence to support the factual findings below, those findings cannot be held to be clearly erroneous.” Fuge v. Fuge, 146 Md.App. 142, 180, 806 A.2d 716, 738 (2002); see also McCleary v. McCleary, 150 Md.App. 448, 462, 822 A.2d 460, 469 (2003).

In determining a marital award, the trial court first must determine the amount and value of the marital property. Generally, “property disposed of before trial cannot be marital property.” Turner [v. Turner], 147 Md.App. [350] at 409, 809 A.2d [18] at 52 [ (2002) ]. An exception to the general rule has been recognized when a court “finds that property was intentionally dissipated in order to avoid inclusion of the property towards consideration of a monetary award....” Sharp v. Sharp, 58 Md.App. 386, 399, 473 A.2d 499, 505 (1984). Even so, “a conveyance made by a husband before and in anticipation of his wife's suit for alimony, or pending such suit, or after decree has been entered therein in the wife's favor, to prevent her from obtaining alimony, is fraudulent and may be set aside, unless the grantee took in good faith, without notice and for value.” Oles Envelope Corp. v. Oles, 193 Md. 79, 89, 65 A.2d 899, 903 (1949) (holding spouse's sale of marital property stock for $42,000 over book value adequate consideration to defeat fraudulent dissipation claim). To include property that was disposed of during the marriage, the trial court must be persuaded that there is evidence of dissipation, and “the party alleging dissipation has the initial burden of production and burden of persuasion.” McCleary, 150 Md.App. at 463, 822 A.2d at 469. If the evidence presented in support of a finding of dissipation is insufficient, the trial court reasonably may conclude that the previously relinquished asset should not be included in the marital property.

Id. at 201-02, 857 A.2d at 1123-24.

[4] The case at bar involves the issue of whether Appellee “spent or otherwise depleted marital funds or property with the principal purpose of reducing the amount of funds that would be available for equitable distribution at the time of the divorce.” Welsh v. Welsh, 135 Md.App. 29, 51, 761 A.2d 949, 961 (2000). In Heger v. Heger, 184 Md.App. 83, 964 A.2d 258 (2009), the Court of Special Appeals stated:

*5 In litigating a claim that one spouse has dissipated marital assets, the critical time is that between the separation or the time when “the marriage is undergoing an irreconcilable breakdown,” Sharp v. Sharp, 58 Md.App. 386, 401, 473 A.2d 499 (1984), on the one hand, and the ultimate divorce, on the other had. The other critical factor is the purpose on the part of the spending spouse for the expenditure. What matters is not that one spouse has, post-separation, expended some of the marital assets, what is critically important is the purpose behind the expenditure. The doctrine of dissipation is aimed at the nefarious purpose of one spouse's spending for his or her own personal advantage so as to compromise the other spouse in terms of the ultimate distribution of marital assets.

Id. at 96, 964 A.2d at 265.

[5] Appellant concedes that an appellate court “will not set aside a trial court's determination regarding dissipation of marital assets unless the determination is clearly erroneous.” Beck, supra, 112 Md.App. at 216, 684 A.2d at 887. According to Appellant, however (in the words of his brief):

The Court incorrectly applied the current Maryland law on dissipation; it did not follow the Jeffcoat analytical steps. There can be no doubt that Appellant made out a prima facie case of dissipation; he brought forth testimonial and documentary evidence which, standing alone and unexplained, would maintain the proposition and warrant the conclusion that dissipation had occurred.

* * *

Faced with prima facie evidence of dissipation, Appellee then had to produce evidence sufficient to show that the expenditures were appropriate. Appellee failed to produce such evidence even when asked to do so. In fact, she admitted that she did not have any documents to show that she had expended more than $80,000.00 within eight months on the family considering that she was gainfully employed, had received almost $12,000.00 from her equity share in the refinance of the marital home, and Appellant was paying child support to her. It strains credulity to imagine that one would make counter withdrawals of such large sums of money, over a relatively short period of time, and yet argue that the expenditures were only for family purposes while providing no receipts.

What is more inconceivable is that the Court would not require proof, beyond testimony, that such amounts had indeed been spent appropriately. The Court [took] Appellee's testimony alone; it stated that “the only testimony as to where the money went is for household goods, mortgages, clothes, to pay off credit card debt, and to send money to her minor children, somewhere.” But the Court had a duty to evaluate the expenditures to determine whether dissipation had taken place; whether joint funds had been spent for other than family purposes with the intention of reducing the amount of money available to the court for equitable distribution. The Court engaged in a cursory and biased analysis of the testimony and evidence in this matter; as such no such robust evaluation was undertaken.

*6 It is difficult to determine whether Appellant is arguing that, as soon as he satisfied his burden of production by presenting “prima facie evidence of dissipation,” (1) the ultimate burden of persuasion was shifted to Appellee, who was required to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that she had not dissipated the withdrawn funds, or (2) Appellee failed to satisfy her burden of production because she failed to produce “any documents” in support of her testimony as to how she spent the funds that she withdrew from the bank accounts that she had opened in her name only. There is no merit, however, in either of those arguments.

In their Maryland Family Law treatise, the authors suggest a “cookbook method” to resolve a dissipation allegation. As modified to clarify the burdens of production and persuasion, that method is as follows:

• If property does not exist at the time of divorce, it cannot usually be included as marital property.

• Well, that is so unless one spouse proves [by a preponderance of the evidence] that the other spouse dissipated assets acquired during the marriage to avoid inclusion of those assets toward consideration of a monetary award.

• [A prima facie case] of dissipation occurs when evidence is produced that marital assets were taken by one spouse without agreement by the other spouse.

• Then, the burden of going forward with evidence shifts to the party who [allegedly] took the assets without permission to [produce evidence that generates a genuine question of fact on the issue of (1) whether the assets were taken without agreement, and/or (2) ] where the funds are [and/or (3) whether the funds] were used for marital or family expenses.

• If that proof of use for marital or family purposes is not produced, then the property taken is “extant” marital property, titled in or owned by the individual who took the marital property without permission.

• From that “extant” property in the name of one spouse, the other spouse may be given a monetary award to make things equitable.

John F. Fader, II & Richard J. Gilbert, Maryland Family Law, § 15-10 (4th ed.2006).

It is clear that the ultimate burden of persuasion remains on the party who claims that the other party has dissipated marital assets.

The burden of persuasion and the initial burden of production in showing dissipation is on the party making the allegation. Choate v. Choate, 97 Md.App. 347, 366, 629 A.2d 1304[, 1314] (1993). That party retains throughout the burden of persuading the court that funds have been dissipated, but after that party establishes a prima facie case that monies have been dissipated, i.e. expended for the principal purpose of reducing the funds available for equitable distribution, the burden shifts to the party who spent the money to produce evidence sufficient to show that the expenditures were appropriate.

Jeffcoat, supra, 102 Md.App. at 311, 649 A.2d at 1142.

*7 [9][10] Proof that a spouse made sizable withdrawals from bank accounts under his or her control is sufficient to support the finding that the spouse had dissipated the withdrawn funds. Ross v. Ross, 90 Md.App. 176, 191, 600 A.2d 891, 898-99, vacated on other grounds, 327 Md. 101, 607 A.2d 933 (1992). In the case at bar, the Circuit Court expressly found that “there has been evidence presented that [Appellee] spent substantial sums of money during the marriage[.]” If that evidence had been presented through the testimony of other witnesses, or if Appellant had not questioned Appellee about how she spent the money, there would be merit in Appellant's argument that he “made out a prima facie case of dissipation[.]” Appellant, however, elected to question Appellee about how she spent the funds that she withdrew from her bank accounts in 2005, thereby presenting the Circuit Court with both (1) evidence of the withdrawals, and (2) Appellee's explanation of what she did with the money. While Appellant was certainly entitled to argue that Appellee's explanation was unworthy of belief, the Circuit Court was not required to agree with that argument.

[11] There is no merit in the argument “that this Court [must] vacate the judgment of no dissipation and remand the case with instructions to the Circuit Court to enter a Judgment in favor of the Appellant.” In Figgins v. Cochrane, 174 Md.App. 1, 920 A.2d 572 (2007), the Court of Special Appeals provided the following explanation for its conclusion that the Circuit Court was not clearly erroneous in finding that the appellant's evidence failed to rebut the presumption that she had improperly benefitted from her confidential relationship with her deceased father:

The finding of [the Circuit Court] that there was a confidential relationship is unassailable. That relationship created, as a matter of law, the presumption that any largesse exercised by the Father toward the appellant-be it by deed of property or by gift from an equity loan-was improperly induced by the relationship, whatever the modality of the transfer might turn out to be. The burden was cast upon the appellant to rebut that invalidating presumption. [The Circuit Court] found that “in no manner has [appellant] met that burden. [The Circuit Court] was simply not persuaded, and there was evidence to support that non-persuasion. That there might also have been some evidence in the case pointing in the other direction is beside the point. It was clearly a question of fact for the fact finder. [The Circuit Court's] conclusion in that regard cannot, therefore, be said to have been clearly erroneous.

Id. at 14-15, 920 A.2d at 580. This Court quoted that analysis with approval in Figgins v. Cochrane, 403 Md. 392, 406, 942 A.2d 736, 744 (2008), while concluding “as did the Court of Special Appeals, that the trial court's finding that [Petitioner] had not met her burden to prove the validity of the transfer, was not clearly erroneous.” Id. at 414, 942 A.2d at 749. As the Court of Special Appeals noted in Bricker v. Warch, 152 Md.App. 119, 831 A.2d 453 (2003):
*8 Although it is not uncommon for a fact-finding judge to be clearly erroneous when he [or she] is affirmatively PERSUADED of something, it is, as in this case, almost impossible for a judge to be clearly erroneous when he [or she] is simply NOT PERSUADED of something.

Id. at 137, 831 A.2d 453, 831 A.2d at 464 (emphasis in original).

[12] In its assessment of the credibility of witnesses, the Circuit Court was entitled to accept-or reject-all, part, or none of the testimony of any witness, whether that testimony was or was not contradicted or corroborated by any other evidence. The finding that Appellee had testified truthfully was therefore not erroneous-clearly or otherwise-merely because the Circuit Court could have drawn different “permissible inferences which might have been drawn from the evidence by another trier of the facts.” Hous. Opportunities Comm'n of Montgomery County v. Lacey, 322 Md. 56, 61, 585 A.2d 219, 222 (1991) (internal citations omitted). Because the Circuit Court was entitled to find that Appellee had “explain[ed] adequately where the funds [that she had withdrawn from her bank accounts in 2005] went[,]” we shall affirm the judgment at issue.