Innerbichler v. Innerbichler
Maryland Court of Special Appeals
752 A.2d 291 (2000)
- Written by Sean Carroll, JD
Facts
In October 1982, Nicholas Innerbichler (plaintiff) co-founded a government contracting company, Technical and Management Services Corporation (TAMSCO). Innerbichler owned 51 percent of TAMSCO. In June 1983, TAMSCO applied for a certification from the United States Small Business Administration (SBA). In January 1984, Nicholas married Carole Innerbichler (defendant). TAMSCO was still in its early stages as a company at this time; for fiscal year 1984, TAMSCO earned $188,000 in revenue. In April 1984, TAMSCO received the SBA certification, which enabled TAMSCO to obtain large government contracts. Thereafter, TAMSCO’s value increased dramatically. For fiscal year 1997, TAMSCO earned $51 million in revenue. In 1995, Nicholas moved out of the marital home and filed for divorce. In 1998, the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County granted Nicholas divorce based on two years of separation. The circuit court found that Nicholas was primarily responsible for TAMSCO’s increase in value, due to his work in the company during the marriage. The circuit court thus deemed Nicholas’s interest in TAMSCO’s appreciation in value marital property. The circuit court awarded Carole over $2 million, which was approximately half of Nicholas’s share of the appreciation of TAMSCO’s estimated value since the parties’ marriage. Nicholas appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Hollander, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.