JGL Law, Author at JGL Law

In an article published on LinkedIn Pulse on October 29, 2025, Michal Shinnar is quoted about the legal realities surrounding organizations’ efforts to scale back or redefine diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. Drawing on interviews with 16 leaders across multiple sectors, the piece explores how companies are adjusting their people management strategies amid evolving political and regulatory environments.

Michal notes that while some organizations are moving quickly to eliminate DEI programs, the underlying legal standards remain unchanged. “Title VII hasn’t been overturned,” she explains. “While people are rushing to get rid of DEI, robust Title VII compliance remains important.”

She underscores that anti-discrimination protections, investigation protocols, and equal opportunity requirements still apply. “Title VII (and other anti-discrimination laws) prohibit quota-based hiring practices, exclusionary programs, and providing favorable or less favorable treatment to employees because of protected traits like race or sex, and this applies to all races and sexes.”

Michal emphasizes that auditing for fairness remains a best practice: “Auditing your company to ensure there is not discrimination going on against anyone is a valuable thing for employers to do to ensure Title VII compliance, and should not be thrown out because it has been labeled ‘DEI.’”

Continue reading “The Psychology Behind Corporate DEI Pivots: Evidence vs. Emotion in 2025.”

The holiday season is just around the corner, and for many separated or divorced parents, that means excitement mixed with a bit of anxiety. With Halloween only a day away and Thanksgiving coming quickly after, this is the time of year when custody schedules, communication challenges, and emotional stress can easily collide.

As a Maryland family law attorney, I often see holiday disputes arise not out of bad intentions but from last-minute confusion or lack of planning. The good news is that a little foresight and flexibility can go a long way in keeping the holidays enjoyable for everyone, especially your children.

Start with Halloween: The First Test of the Season

Halloween tends to sneak up fast, and because it’s not always specifically addressed in custody orders, parents often don’t realize there’s a potential for conflict until it’s too late. Who takes the child trick-or-treating? Who attends a school event? What if both parents live in the same neighborhood?

Here are a few tips to get ahead of those issues now:

Check your custody order to see if Halloween is mentioned as a holiday. If not, the regular weekday schedule usually applies.
Communicate with the other in advance of the day to discuss plans, including where trick-or-treating will take place, who will handle costumes, and whether both parents will participate.
Be flexible if possible. If the children want both parents involved, try to make it work.
Sometimes alternating years or splitting the evening (one parent for early events, one for later) helps everyone enjoy the night.
Put any agreements in writing (a short email is fine) to avoid confusion later.

Even if things don’t go perfectly, remember that kids are focused on fun and memories, not logistics. Keeping a positive attitude and making the evening about Halloween as opposed to parental conflict is key.

Thanksgiving: Plan Now, Avoid Stress Later

Thanksgiving is traditionally one of the major holidays addressed in Maryland custody orders, but problems still arise when parents assume instead of confirming. Whether your order calls for the holiday to alternate based on years or that a mixture of the holiday and the weekend alternates, make sure you’re clear on what the arrangement is.

Here’s how to stay ahead:

Like Halloween, confirm the schedule early. Waiting until Thanksgiving morning to coordinate pickup and drop-off times opens you up to conflict.
If you are traveling, discuss travel plans now. If your plans include out-of-state travel, your agreement likely has an itinerary disclosure requirement that includes a disclosure timing clause. Make sure you are complying with the terms of your agreement.
Flexibility. While it is important to respect your agreement or the order, Courts appreciate it when parents cooperate and show flexibility, particularly in the context of holidays. If one parent’s extended family is unexpectedly gathering that weekend, consider swapping time if it benefits the child.
Avoid putting kids in the middle. Don’t ask them to choose where they want to spend the holiday. Present a united front that reassures them both parents are happy they’ll have a good holiday.

If disagreements arise and can’t be resolved, don’t take matters into your own hands. In Maryland, violating a custody order, even for something as well-intentioned as keeping the child for an extra dinner, can have serious consequences. If your order or agreement is unclear or outdated, talk to a family law attorney before acting. Sometimes a simple modification or clarification can prevent larger problems later.

Looking Ahead: Building Better Traditions

While holidays can be stressful, they’re also opportunities to build new traditions. If you’re newly separated or still adjusting to co-parenting, keep your focus on what the children will remember, not custody logistics. Some parents find success by creating new traditions in each household, keeping consistent communication with the other parent about upcoming holidays through shared calendars or apps, and avoiding last-minute changes unless absolutely necessary.

However, holidays are also a time for understanding, and that includes flexibility. That does not mean you have to ignore your order or agreement or let the other parent dictate your holidays, but a bit of flexibility and understanding goes a long way. Your behavior now sets the tone for future cooperation, and Maryland courts consistently encourage co-parents to demonstrate flexibility and reasonableness, especially during the holidays. Showing that you can communicate effectively and put the child’s needs first not only benefits your family dynamic but can also reflect positively in future court proceedings if modifications or disputes arise.

A Final Word

The holidays don’t have to be a source of conflict. By planning early, communicating clearly, and keeping your child’s happiness front and center, you can make Halloween, Thanksgiving, and the rest of the season peaceful and memorable. If you have questions about your custody order, need help clarifying a holiday schedule, or find yourself in a dispute, reach out to discuss as soon as possible. Timely legal guidance can prevent unnecessary stress and allow you to focus on what really matters this season, making lasting memories with your children.

Major changes have reshaped how custody cases are decided in Maryland. In this episode of JGL LAW FOR YOU, attorneys David Bulitt and Christopher Castellano unpack newly enacted House Bill 1191, which establishes 16 key factors courts must now consider when determining what legal and physical custody arrangement is in the best interest of a child. They discuss how these rules create greater uniformity and what parents need to know when preparing for a custody case or modification. Whether you’re facing a potential custody dispute or simply want to understand Maryland’s evolving family law landscape, this episode offers essential insights and practical guidance.

David Bulitt: [00:00:00] Welcome to JGL Law for You. JGL Law for You is a podcast by
lawyers, but not for lawyers. Only on JGL Law for You do we discuss a wide array of
topics to help you navigate the many legal processes, developments in the law, other
current events, and how they may affect you, your family, or your business.

Today, we’re talking family law. Why are we talking family law? Because, as of October
1, some very, very important changes were made to the laws here in the state of
Maryland. Helping us talk through them and explain what they mean to you if you’re
potentially looking at divorce or a custody dispute with your spouse or significant other
is my partner and good friend, Chris Castellano.

Welcome back, Chris.

Chris Castellano: Good morning, David. Good as always to be back.

David Bulitt: Yeah, good to have you. So, let’s dive right into this. We’re talking about
Maryland’s new House Bill 1191, which I know has now come into effect under the
Family Law Article, Section 9-201. That’s effective as of [00:01:00] October 1, 2025.
Let’s start from the top and work our way down.

Why is this important to people who are either thinking of or on the precipice of looking
at a potential custody dispute?

Chris Castellano: So, 9-201 is now the unquestionable backbone of custody cases in
Maryland. It dictates — there are 16 factors laid out, and we can go into them in more
depth in a few — and they dictate exactly how the court’s going to look at a custody
case and how the court’s going to rule on that custody case because it dictates that the
court must articulate its findings based on these factors.

So not only is it a way that we as attorneys have to approach the case from its very
inception, but all the way to its conclusion by way of a court ruling. This is pretty seminal
as far as a new law for custody cases is concerned.

David Bulitt: [00:02:00] Okay. So, for custody cases, before this law was passed, how
were they decided, and how is it any different now?

Chris Castellano: They still utilize factors, right? We’re all too aware of the Taylor v.
Taylor factors and the Sanders and Montgomery County v. Sanders factors. There was
a litany of factors that we would all rely upon in order to establish and argue our custody
cases.

What’s different now is that the legislature in Annapolis took all those different
collections of factors and distilled them down to what I’d call the greatest hits of factors.
There are factors 1 through 15, and I say that very specifically. Factors 1 through 15 are
basically your primary factors to look at when arguing a custody case. Number 16 is your kind of kitchen sink. It’s the any-other-factor that the court wants to consider. But
[00:03:00] factors 1 through 15 are your definitive factors that we are now going to go
through when arguing a custody case.

David Bulitt: Alright, so you’re getting ready. You’re thinking about a potential divorce,
whether it’s just a custody dispute, whatever it may be. As a litigant — or maybe better
put, as a parent — what should I be thinking about in terms of what I’ll need to help
prepare my case and what my lawyer’s going to need to help me with so that I can
maintain custody of my children?

Chris Castellano: Yeah, so you know you and I have had quite a few recordings, and
one of the themes of my way of thinking is risk management, right? I think this is a
perfect example of that. When a litigant — or a potential litigant — is looking at an
upcoming custody case that they know is coming down the pipeline, what they want to
do, if they’re feeling ambitious, is look at these factors, even write them out, and say,
“Where are my [00:04:00] vulnerabilities? Where is it that I’ve got some type of
exposure?”

Now, of course, that could be down to the Hollywoodized version of, “Do you have
skeletons in your closet?” We can talk about that. But it’s really analyzing, hey, is this
factor going to go for me or is this factor going to go against me? Now, there’s nothing in
the new statute that says that because there are 15 factors, if you have eight and the
other side has seven, then you automatically win. There’s nothing that says that.

But it is a good way for you to look at these factors and say, “This one is for me,” or
“This one helps,” or “This one helps my argument, and these ones don’t.” Maybe that’s
where you focus. That’s where you focus your efforts.

David Bulitt: It’s almost like chemistry class. There are 15 factors, and there’s a 16th,
which we’ll talk about. You throw them into a beaker, and then something comes out. I
mean, it’s not that scientific, is it?

At the end of the day, we’re not measuring what goes into a beaker in chemistry class.
[00:05:00] Whatever these factors are — and I want you to talk about them — they’re
still subjective to a great extent, are they not?

Chris Castellano: I like that you brought it up in terms of something empirical —
something that’s right or wrong. I’m a very black-and-white guy, and I love it when there
is a structure. I’ve always had that reputation of being a rules guy. I love the rules. I love
the structure of things.

Every single person that approaches things is going to have a bias, is going to have a
subjective view on things. But I think the intention here of this new law, 9-201, is to try to minimize as much as possible the subjectivity and make it into a clear set of factors that
we analyze.

Hopefully, when you have enough of these cases being decided under 9-201, you
establish a pattern. While it’s not as empirical as [00:06:00] the scientific world, it
nevertheless makes it so that there is less variation. Perhaps this is part of Annapolis’s
thinking: there’s, as a result, less ground for appeal in custody cases.

David Bulitt: So, when a judge listens to a custody case now, at the conclusion of the
testimony, at the conclusion of the trial, is that judge required to tick through these
factors and say, “This is what the evidence showed as to factor one. This is what the
evidence showed as to factor two,” and so forth?

Chris Castellano: Yes. In short, the answer is yes. Section 9-201(b) says that the court
shall articulate its findings on the record or in a written opinion, including the
consideration of each factor listed in the subsection above, right?

And by the way, relative to factor 16, which is our kitchen [00:07:00] sink, that includes
any other factor that the court considers. So, the short answer is yes. The court must go
through and identify them.

In my opinion, the effective rulings that we’ve had prior to this were the ones that
articulated each of the Taylor and Sanders factors, right? I’m sure you agree with that.
Again, that’s this idea, right? We had rulings back in the past that didn’t necessarily
articulate all these findings, or the arguments themselves were a little bit haphazard —
or scattershot, is a better way to say it.

We’re trying to make it a little more definitive, focused, and clean. Maybe make the
approaches more universal.

David Bulitt: So now what we’re doing, right, Chris, is we’ve taken those factors — the
language that was in both of those cases for the most part — and turned them into a
statute that’s really on two pages of the code, as opposed to having to read through 30,
40, or 50 pages of a court opinion.

Chris Castellano: Yeah. I love going through my cases and what I tell my clients, making
them anticlimactic. I say that because, for instance, in a financial case, once you do the
math, once you do the hard work, you can make the issues very anticlimactic. It’s hard
to argue with that black and white.

Now that we have these factors under 9-201, the hope — and I’m sure that Annapolis
shares this hope — is that you’re making these cases somewhat anticlimactic. We know
these factors. We’re not going to argue variations of the Sanders factors. We have
definitive factors that you are not [00:09:00] to deviate from. Argue these 15 factors. If
you want to spend part of the afternoon arguing within factor 16 and add about 10 other factors, that’s on you. But it’s these 15 factors that should enable any judge in Maryland
to decide a case.

David Bulitt: Okay, so are there some of these factors that may be weighed more
heavily than others? I don’t want to say more important, but maybe that is the right word
— that might be more important to lean on depending upon what your case looks like,
what your client looks like, and what their family looks like.

Chris Castellano: Yeah, it’s always interesting. We could, I’m sure, point out five factors
that we would consider generally the most important or the most critical. Then we get a
case that walks through the door, where it turns out that three other factors are actually
much more important given those specific factual circumstances.

But let’s go ahead and do it. In my opinion, of the factors — and I don’t know if you want
to go through all 16 or at least the 15 — [00:10:00] I would say these are some of the
biggest ones: a child’s stability and emotional security is one; the relationships with each
parent and significant people is another; the parents’ ability to communicate and co-
parent — put a pin in that one — the location of the homes and how that affects the
child’s routine, that’s another big one; and the child’s age and preference, if appropriate.
Of those five, I would consider the location of the homes and how it affects the child’s
routine as your baseline critical factor. I mean, that’s going to be virtually critical in every
case because it affects the day-to-day.

David Bulitt: Okay, so let’s morph back for a second to the old days when I first got
started out — and the laws have certainly changed since then — but in those days,
when we were talking about getting ready for a custody case and we look at this
[00:11:00] factor in terms of the location of the homes and how that affects the child’s
routine, we told people not to leave, right?

If you have two young kids at home and you are there with your spouse, don’t leave the
house. Because if you leave, especially if you’ve got kids in school, you put your case in
a difficult position. You’re the one that’s trying to get those children — that child or those
kids — to come and live at a new place someplace that they haven’t lived before,
whereas a parent who stays there is more able to show, “I can maintain the status quo.”
Would you agree with that so far?

Okay, so now layer on top of that that folks don’t need to be separated to get divorced
here in Maryland anymore. Doesn’t this potentially cause significant harm to families
who look to be heading down the custody route? In other words, you’ve got two parents,
both of whom have lawyered up. Now they’re getting ready for [00:12:00] this custody
case in which these factors have been articulated into law, and one of them, as you’ve
properly identified, is the location of the homes and how that affects a child’s routine.

So, both parents want primary physical custody, want to have the kids primarily reside
with them. Why would either parent move out under this new law?

Chris Castellano: You know, David, this has come up for me recently in a handful of
cases. Frankly, the short answer is that not much has changed in that general way of
thinking, right? The family’s castle remains just that. Any house thereafter is more of a
fort rather than a castle, right? That hasn’t changed.

In fact, I would go one step further and argue that the ability to establish and maintain a
divorce case while living in the same house has only complicated this. I’m thankful that
we codified these 15 to 16 factors into law, but that’s [00:13:00] a Band-Aid over the
greater problem, which is the separation within the home.

Because not only do you leave the custody questions open — frankly, the only way to
establish a custody arrangement still remains if there are different homes — we’re
juggling two different warring concepts here, and there’s no good clean answer to date. I
appreciate these factors, but I would also appreciate maybe this term coming up in
January if we can get some clarity as to how do we deal with this very real situation that
exposes people to real harm and the potential flashpoint of domestic issues.

David Bulitt: Yeah, I mean, the issue clearly is to lay out a map for how to determine this
sort of what’s in the best interest of this child or these children, right? That’s why this is
now law, right? This is now a statute. They’re looking to try to make a map for people to
follow so judges can more easily make these [00:14:00] determinations, or at least have
a map to make the determinations, right?

Chris Castellano: That’s right.

David Bulitt: Okay. So — and also to create a little bit more uniformity.

Chris Castellano: Yeah.

David Bulitt: But isn’t the irony in all of this that the statute may actually encourage more
dispute, more debate, and more fighting because neither one wants to leave the house
and lose that edge?

Chris Castellano: Absolutely. I think that a lot of the recent changes we’ve seen to the
law — whether it’s the six-month separation, whether it’s the separation within the
home, whether it’s the elimination of the grounds for divorce down to just no-fault
grounds, and now with this — I think the idea is to simplify the process and make it
more accessible. I think that we keep hearing this.

But I believe your intuition is correct, and this is what I’ve observed: the cases have
been far more contentious as a result.

David Bulitt: Okay. I don’t want to beat this like a dead horse, as they say. [00:15:00]
Folks, we are going to put the factors in our show notes here, so you’ll be able to look at
those as you listen to this episode.

I do want to ask you about this 16th factor, Chris, and tell us what that is and why it’s
there.

Chris Castellano: So, the 16th factor is any other factor that the court considers
appropriate in determining how best to serve the physical, developmental, and
emotional needs of the child. That’s verbatim. I just read that off of the statute itself.
Can you come up with a more open-ended factor than that, David? I can’t. It’s
essentially your kitchen sink, right? Forgive me for not recalling the exact number of
factors in Sanders and Taylor. I think the last number I had was upwards of 30 if you
totaled them all together.

I’m sure that you can go into both of those cases and find some factors that you think
help your case that aren’t listed in the statute. That’s what it really comes down to. While
these first [00:16:00] 15 factors are going to be generally applicable to the population at
large, every custody case has its unique entanglements and issues.

So that 16th factor is a way that, while acknowledging the desire for uniformity, the
legislature has still allowed the court to consider the particular needs of a child because
ultimately, if you don’t allow the court to consider the particularized needs of a child,
then how can you say that the legislature has allowed the court to consider the best
interest of the child? It would have failed at its job without that factor.

David Bulitt: I hear that, and it also — again, so that there’s no confusion — layers on
another piece of subjectivity, doesn’t it? I mean, I’m Judge Bull. I’m making a
determination in the Jones versus Jones case. I’ve looked at these factors, but let’s say
there’s something that irks me about this [00:17:00] mother. There’s something that
bothers me, so I’m going to come up with something to get me where I want to go.
I’m going to consider these factors, but there’s something in my gut that tells me X or Y
should happen. Doesn’t that allow a judge — again, I know we’re trying to reduce
subjectivity to a certain degree — but doesn’t the fact of the matter remain that we’re not
really doing that, are we?

Chris Castellano: If you had, let’s say, the Smith v. Smith case also come across, and
you look at this and say, okay, these are two parents that maybe couldn’t get along.
Here are the factors, and it’s pretty down the middle. It’s not terribly controversial. It’s a
fairly straightforward custody case. It’s unfortunate; maybe the lawyers didn’t get along
in all the ways that they should have, and so the case didn’t settle, and it’s in front of
Judge Bull.

In that case, you’re comfortable. You could be equally comfortable in just resolving that
case within the first 15 factors. Then you have another case, same thing. Maybe you
only needed 14 of the 15 factors. So, I would assume [00:18:00] that out of 10 cases,
seven of them will be able to be resolved within the first 15 factors.

It is those last three that are high conflict that require the 16th factor. That is your wild
card. I don’t know of anyone that’s won the game of UNO without using a wild card,
right? In this instance, I think it’s the release valve that’s necessary.

David Bulitt: Okay. And just briefly to touch on this, the factor that involves the child’s
age and preference — how much does that matter, depending upon the age or maturity
of the child?

Chris Castellano: This is such a great question. The answer is that I do wish here on
this factor, the age of the child were explained and expanded on a little bit more, right?
Because you could have a case where a 12-year-old acts like a [00:19:00] 16-year-old
and a 16-year-old acts like a 7-year-old, right?

You talk about subjectivity. I suppose that the court is empowered to analyze that, but
the factor just says simply the age of the child. It just says the age of the child. If the
court says, okay, the kid’s 15 years old, this is what I’m going to do. I’m not going to
mandate this very, very specific arrangement. I’m just going to have it be somewhat
more open because the kid has about 15 extracurricular activities each day of the week,
and the kid’s going to be driving in a year, so they’ll be able to drive back and forth.
I think that opens up some issues, and if I could be critical and so bold as to criticize the
statute, that’s kind of where I would start.

David Bulitt: I mean, logic tells you, common sense tells us, that a 15-year-old’s
preference — assuming that 15-year-old is an age-appropriate, mature 15-year-old —
that child’s [00:20:00] preference is going to mean more than a 3-year-old saying, “I
want to be with mama. I want to be with Daddy.”

So, let’s shift a little bit to modification. Here’s the scenario: the Joneses were divorced
in 2020. There was a custody arrangement, and now that’s not working for whatever
reason. You can discuss the possible reasons for that. So now Mr. Jones is looking to
modify that prior order or that prior agreement.

Is it the same analysis? You just go to these factors, and this is what a court has to do
— look at these 15 factors plus one to make a determination? Or is there another hoop
that the person who is trying to change that existing order has to jump through?

Chris Castellano: Yeah, so the legislature helped out a little bit here, too, right? Section
9-202 is a new statute effective as of October 1, 2025, that is slotted in right after 9-201,
which we just talked about — the factors, right?

It outlines that the court may [00:21:00] modify a child custody order or a visitation order
if there’s been a material change in circumstance since the last order and if modifying it
would meet the best interest of the child. I’m paraphrasing, but that’s essentially the
concept now embodied within this new statute, 9-202.

That concept is not a new one. It is still the threshold that we have all operated on. It’s
still the magical language that we’ve all operated on. It is the idea that there must be a
material change in circumstances from the last order, meaning since the last order was
put in place, something has changed in a material way — not a superficial way, but a
material way — that justifies changing that order.

How do we change that order? In a way that meets the best interest of the child. At that
point, once you start to answer that question, [00:22:00] you are going to turn the page
backwards and go to 9-201 and start going back through those factors.

David Bulitt: Okay. And what might be — I know there’s a litany of possibilities — what
might be some common examples of a change in circumstances that would result in the
court taking a look at the potential modification of an existing order?

Chris Castellano: So, I’ll use a couple. One is listed in 9-202 itself, almost as if to
provide us an example, right? Parent B says the parent’s proposal to relocate the
residence of the parent or the child in a way that would cause physical custody to be
impractical constitutes a material change in circumstance.

There was always a question in all of our cases in the past that had this issue of how far
away is too far away to move in a way that causes a material change in circumstance.
The statute doesn’t really answer that question, but it does add a [00:23:00] helpful
layer. It refers to a move that causes physical custody to be impractical. That outlines
how you now essentially need to go back to 9-201 and those factors to start doing the
analysis.

I would also say that you can look at the factors themselves to identify whether or not
there’s a material change, and this is all going to be new, so it’s going to be up to your
argument to the court. But items such as the ability to communicate and co-parent —
that was one of the factors we talked about — come to mind.

I think that right there, sure, the court custody order in place says that they need to
communicate on all the issues and that they’re supposed to communicate through Our
Family Wizard, right? Then you’ve got a situation where Parent A, six months into the
order, stops communicating via Our Family Wizard, starts communicating via text only,
and is very combative.

That is a situation where the court says, “You know what? Section 9-202 is triggered. A
material change has occurred here because the parties are unable to communicate.” In that scenario, one of the factors is failing. That’s how I would consider that analysis
taking place.

David Bulitt: Very briefly, because I’m sure there are a few of us lawyers here who are
listening: what’s the impact of this statute on lawyers who try these types of cases, who
represent clients when it comes to either initial custody cases or potential modifications?

Chris Castellano: It identifies our ability to look at these cases and say, alright, we know
for sure that if a material change has occurred, then we’re making that change — or at
least analyzing whether we should — under the prior factors. So again, it’s moving past
the arguability under the case law and putting it into the [00:25:00] quote-unquote
uniform, or lack-of-variability, structure of a statute.

David Bulitt: Okay. And if you’re a parent who — let’s just deal with a specific example,
because this is something that happens with regularity — you’re a parent who says,
“You know, I got to move because of my job. I got moved to X, Y, or Z.” This is going to
upset the existing access schedule, right? It may result in a modification.

I come to you, and I say, “What do I do? I don’t want to not see my kids. I’m worried that
I have to move to Richmond,” — pick a place — “and that’s too far for me to be able to
get the kids seven nights out of 14 or six nights out of 14 during the school year.” How
do you work with that client in terms of trying to make sure that they don’t face what
could be a very restrictive access schedule?

Chris Castellano: Yeah. I mean, that’s always tough, right? Even non-preferential traffic
patterns can lead to what becomes an impractical physical custody arrangement,
especially in this area. It’s not [00:26:00] the best, and it’s tough on parents.

But at the end of the day, what you can do is start going through these factors, those 9-
201 factors. Again, it’s not one of those things where if you get eight and the other side
gets seven, you win. But you do need to start building up how strong of a case you
have, right?

Yes, maybe the relocation will inevitably lead to a change in the physical custody
schedule, thus requiring an analysis here. But you use those other factors to your
benefit and see if you can’t get a situation that still is in the best interest of your child in
a way that’s not so destructive to what was the original custody arrangement, or at least
as far as the number of overnights, for instance, is concerned.

David Bulitt: That calls for some creativity, right, on behalf of my lawyer in terms of trying
to figure out how I can now maximize my time with my kids despite the fact that I have
to move a hundred miles away or whatever it might be.

Chris Castellano: Yeah. I mean, at the end of the day, all these Taylor and Sanders
factors were bred out of an understanding of the statute itself, right? We now have a statute. So, in 5, 10, or 15 years’ time, we’re going to have new case law that is probably finding itself nestled within factor number 16, and there’s going to be case law that’s really going to help us truly define how we move forward on these custody cases.

David Bulitt: Okay, so let me ask you this. We’ve been talking for half an hour or so now,
but if there are a couple of real — I hate to say soundbite, but that’s the kind of society
we live in now — takeaways, soundbite-sort-of takeaways for folks that are listening, tell
me what those would be.

Chris Castellano: Yeah. In the last few years, the Maryland legislature has tried to
implement a campaign of bringing in more uniformity to family law in Maryland. I think
that this statute is the first real attempt to make custody cases [00:28:00] more uniform
in Maryland and have the bench employ less variability, less ambiguity, fewer vagaries,
and rest within at least 15 primary factors with one open-door factor, number 16.
It’s a way that perhaps the cases that we present to judges are simply just that — more
uniform and less variable.

David Bulitt: Okay. And if folks, Chris, want to get ahold of you and discuss their
potential case and what might be coming for them down the road, what’s the best way
for them to do that?

Chris Castellano: Yeah, they can give me a call right here at JGL — Joseph Greenwald
& Lake — at 240-399-7881, or send me an email. My profile and all my contact
information are on our website, and I would be happy to talk about either any new
custody issues or modification issues that [00:29:00] rest within this new statute.

David Bulitt: Chris, I want to thank you for your time. Folks out there who are listening,
custody cases are a minefield where parents regularly — and I say regularly — do
things that they ought not to do. So, if you’re on the precipice, if you’re looking at the
potential for custody litigation or just want some advice as to how to prepare for it, give
Chris a call. I’m quite certain he can answer your questions.

As always, folks, thank you for joining us, and we’ll talk to you next time on JGL Law for
You.

Bethesda Magazine has recognized four attorneys from Joseph, Greenwald & Laake (JGL) on its Top Attorneys 2025 list.

To compile the list, the magazine surveyed attorneys who practice in Montgomery County, asking whom they would trust to represent them if they needed legal counsel. The publication received more than 2,700 nominations and ultimately selected 299 attorneys across a variety of practice areas for inclusion on this year’s list.

The following JGL attorneys were named to the list:

Valerie Grove – Medical Negligence
Jay Holland – Employment – Employee
Timothy Maloney – Appellate and Civil Litigation
Steven Pavsner – Medical Negligence

Children are more than twice as likely to be struck by a car and killed on Halloween than on any other day of the year.

On the 31^st of October each year, millions and millions of children in the United States celebrate Halloween by walking door to door in their neighborhoods collecting candy from neighbors.

Halloween is an enjoyable time of year; however, it poses significant risks when it comes to pedestrian accidents in Maryland, Virginia, and the District. While following safety tips helps keep young trick-or-treaters safe, injuries can still happen.

Most pedestrian fatalities on Halloween take place between 5:00 and 9:00 p.m. The riskiest hour is between 6:00 and 7:00 p.m. as the sun sets and increasing darkness overlaps with children being out on the street.

October is designated National Pedestrian Safety Month by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). Especially during this time of year, it is critical for drivers to be alert for pedestrians and cyclists. According to NHTSA, in the United States, 7,314 pedestrians were killed in traffic crashes in 2023, a 4% decrease from the 7,593 pedestrian fatalities in 2022.

Halloween Specific Factors Influencing the Risks

Halloween activities occur at dusk, masks restrict peripheral vision, costumes limit visibility, street-crossing safety is neglected, and partygoers who are behind the wheel are impaired by alcohol, leading to Halloween being the most unsafe time of the year for children on our streets.

Weekend vs. Weekday

Friday is the deadliest day for Halloween, with 22% more fatal crashes compared to an average Friday. Halloween car accident statistics show the most dangerous days are also Tuesdays (2nd), Sundays (3rd), and Thursdays (4th).

While there is an increase in fatal crashes happening on Halloween nights versus those nights in general, the weekdays are incredibly more dangerous than the weekend.

Day of the Week	Avg. Daily Fatal Crashes*	Fatal Crash Difference (+/-)	Fatal Crash Difference (%)
Monday-Friday	1,690	+275	16.3%
Saturday-Sunday	686	+36	5.3%
* Based on corresponding day of the week (Saturday, Monday, etc.) fatal crash average

Things to Remember

18% of the people who die in fatal crashes on Halloween are children.
Pedestrians have a 50% higher chance of dying on Halloween than on the average day.
Weekday Halloweens have 11% more fatal crashes than weekend Halloweens.
Over 149,000 Americans signed a petition to permanently move Halloween to Saturday.

Statistics sourced from Auto Insurance.org.

Safety from the National and State Level

Multiple factors influence these numbers, including broad public awareness of Halloween, parental supervision of younger children, and improved safety practices. Halloween highlights the deficiencies on our roads, such as a lack of sidewalks, unsafe street crossings, insufficient areas for children to play in neighborhoods, and failure in traffic and automobile safety, such as excessive speed and alcohol. National Safety Council.

Event-specific interventions to prevent child fatalities include:

Traffic calming and automated speed enforcement
Improving pedestrian visibility by limiting on-street parking and incorporating reflective patches into clothing
Improved media programs highlighting the dangers.

More cities have been designating traffic-free zones for Halloween night, barring cars entirely in a fresh sign the so-called “open,” “slow,” or “shared” streets programs.

Safety Tips for Parents

The state of Maryland offers these Halloween safety tips:

Choose a costume that won’t cause safety hazards; check to be sure all costumes, wigs, and accessories are fire-resistant.
Fasten reflective tape to costumes and bags, or give children glow sticks.
Opt for nontoxic Halloween makeup instead of masks that can obscure vision; for makeup, always test a small area first to see if any irritation develops.
Have a responsible adult accompany young children on the neighborhood rounds.
If older children are going out alone, plan and review a route that is acceptable to you.
Agree on a specific time children should return home.
Instruct children to travel on and in familiar, well-lit areas and stay with their friends.

Safety Tips for Motorists

The National Safety Council offers these additional safety tips for parents – and anyone who plans to be on the road during trick-or-treat hours. Halloween Safety- National Safety Council

Watch for children walking on roadways, medians, and curbs.

Enter and exit driveways and alleys carefully.
At twilight and later in the evening, watch for children in dark clothing.
Discourage new and inexperienced drivers from driving on Halloween.

Maryland and Virginia Are Contributory Negligence States

The contributory negligence rule can significantly affect the outcome of personal injury claims. From the perspective of a pedestrian, this means that if the pedestrian is found to be even 1% at fault for the accident, they may be completely barred from recovering damages, regardless of how much fault lies with the other party. This could mean the difference between a successful claim and a complete dismissal.

If a pedestrian crosses the street outside of a crosswalk and is struck by a vehicle, even if the driver was distracted or speeding, the fault of the pedestrian for failure to cross at the designated crosswalk might be considered enough to bar them from any compensation.

Speak to an Experienced Pedestrian Law Attorney

You can protect your legal rights and those of your children. Experienced attorneys know how to get you fair compensation if you are injured in a pedestrian accident in Maryland, Virginia or the District of Columbia.

Get the facts. Get educated.

Joseph Greenwald & Laake is pleased to announce that five of our attorneys have been recognized by Benchmark Litigation USA based on feedback from their clients and peers, strong case records and up-and-coming reputations.

Four attorneys received the “Litigation Star” ranking, acknowledging strong case records, positive client feedback and high esteem from their peers:

Principal Timothy Maloney was previously ranked and has extensive experience with civil and criminal cases.
Principal Jay Holland practices employment and qui tam litigation. This is his first year being ranked.
Principal Brian Markovitz, ranked for the first time this year, has experience throughout the country with employment litigation and whistleblower cases.
Principal Matthew Bryant, also ranked for the first time, practices civil rights and fiduciary litigation.

Principal Veronica Nannis has been recognized as a “Future Star,” highlighting her as one to watch for her leadership and experience in qui tam and fraud litigation.

The Benchmark Litigation USA guide is published by Benchmark Litigation, a globally respected law firm and lawyer ranking publication. These rankings are based on extensive interviews with lawyers, dispute resolution specialists and clients, as well as an analysis of significant cases and firm developments.

Kenna Cramer and Deborah Jaffe have joined Joseph, Greenwald & Laake (JGL) as associates.

Kenna joins the firm’s family law practice. She brings experience as a trauma-informed legal advocate for survivors of domestic and sexual violence, where she supported clients through complex and emotionally charged legal matters. She earned her J.D. from the University of Wisconsin Law School and her B.A. from Elon University. Learn more about Kenna.

Deborah joins the firm’s civil litigation, civil rights, and personal injury practice. Her experience includes externships with the U.S. Department of Justice and the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. She also worked in a prisoner civil rights clinic, where she gained federal litigation experience. Deborah earned her J.D. from the George Washington University Law School and her B.A. from The Ohio State University. Learn more about Deborah.

Veronica Nannis, principal in the firm’s False Claims Act and Civil Litigation departments, will moderate the session “Litigating False Claims Act Cases” at the Taxpayers Against Fraud (TAF) Coalition’s 25th Annual Conference, taking place November 5–7, 2025, in Washington, DC. JGL is a sponsor this year’s conference, which brings together leading voices in the fight against fraud on the government.

As a member of the TAF Coalition Conference Committee, Veronica brings her deep litigation experience and commitment to whistleblower advocacy to this highly anticipated session. The panel will explore the evolving landscape of FCA litigation, sharing practical insights on discovery disputes, motion practice, and managing complex factual records—critical tools for both seasoned and new FCA litigators.

The TAF Coalition is a public interest, non-profit organization dedicated to defending and empowering whistleblowers who expose fraud on the government and the financial markets.

By Gia Grimm and Karan Manohar

In an era where technology is woven into nearly every part of daily life, consumers often share personal information without realizing the full scope of what is being collected. In fact, a recent 2023 Pew Study confirmed that a staggering 67 % of consumers have little to no understanding about what companies are doing with their personal data. Therefore, in an effort to protect consumers and hold businesses accountable, the Maryland General Assembly passed, and Governor Moore signed, the Maryland Online Data Privacy Act (“MODPA”) in May 2024. MODPA puts the power back into the consumers’ hands by establishing meaningful protections over personal data and holding businesses accountable for responsibly maintaining consumer data.

MODPA goes into effect October 1, 2025, but only applies to companies’ personal data processing activities occurring after April 2026. The six-month delay between the implementation of MODPA going into effect and affecting businesses is given to provide businesses with a grace period to review and adjust their data practices, thereby ensuring a smoother transition for compliance with MODPA. Businesses that either operate within Maryland or target Maryland residents and who process the personal data of at least 35,000 Maryland residents annually or process the data of at least 10,000 Maryland residents and derive more than 20% of their gross revenue from the sale of personal data must comply with MODPA. Business engaging in e-commerce and retailers that collect names, addresses, and payment information are among the types that would need to comply with MODPA. Subscription services businesses, like streaming platforms, that keep consumer login, billing, or preference details must also comply with MODPA.

MODPA establishes affirmative rights for consumers. Consumers will now have more control over how their personal data is used, processed, and maintained. For example, MODPA now requires businesses to provide consumers with access to copies of their retained personal data, if the consumer requests it. Consumers also now have the rights to correct inaccuracies within their personal data and can opt out of having their personal data processed and used for targeted advertising. This means that consumers can now refuse to permit companies to use their personal information to show them targeted ads based on their browsing history, interests, or other personal data.

It is critical that businesses prepare now. Businesses should first determine if they are governed by MODPA, and if so, establish an implementation plan to comply with MODPA’s requirements before enforcement occurs on April 1, 2026. As a result of MODPA going into effect:

Businesses are now limited to collecting only data that is “strictly necessary.” Although “strictly necessary” is not defined, MODPA states that data collected must be proportional to what is needed to maintain a specific product or service requested by the consumer.
Businesses are required to notify consumers if the usage or sharing of their consumer data changes. The notification must be in a manner that enables consumers to access, correct, delete, or opt out of the new use of their personal data.
Businesses must update their privacy risk assessments regarding sensitive protected information processes to comply with MODPA. In other words, businesses should be prepared to document all of their current uses of sensitive protected information and also train teams on how to handle this information in a way that complies with MODPA.
Businesses will now be banned from selling sensitive data related to a consumer’s racial or ethnic background, religious beliefs, sexual orientation, citizenship or immigration status. In fact, businesses are only permitted to collect and process sensitive data when it is strictly necessary to provide a product or service requested by the consumer.
Businesses must identify third party risks when dealing with sensitive protected information. In other words, businesses should review contracts with third parties to ensure that the sale of sensitive protected information aligns with MODPA’s requirements.

As a result of these new protections, businesses will likely need to adjust or update their policies to ensure compliance. Failure to comply could result in fines up to $10,000 per violation and $25,000 for repeated violations. Businesses are given some leeway and have up to sixty (60) days to rectify violations at the Maryland Office ATTY ETC’s discretion, but only until April 1, 2027.

MODPA represents a landmark step in consumer data protection and gives Maryland residents clear, enforceable rights while imposing stringent obligations on businesses. As this law takes effect on October 1, 2025, businesses should act now to review practices, assess risks, and implement systems that safeguard consumer information. By prioritizing transparency and accountability, MODPA transforms the collection of personal data from a largely unregulated commodity into a protected consumer asset. At Joseph Greenwald & Laake, we handle consumer law and data litigation matters of all kinds. If you have any questions about your rights as a consumer or obligations as a business owner, you should contact our experienced legal counsel to discuss your rights and available options.

Christopher Castellano has been named to The Daily Record’s 2025 Family Law Power List.

Selected by the publication’s editorial team, with input from knowledgeable members of the community, the attorneys on the list are among the most influential and respected family law practitioners in Maryland.

A principal at JGL, Chris focuses his practice on both uncontested and contested family law matters, guiding clients through every stage with compassion and strategic insight. He helps identify potential risks early and develops practical solutions to mitigate those risks and protect his clients’ interests. Chris has experience handling a wide range of issues, including prenuptial and post-nuptial agreements, separation agreements, divorce, marital property division, business valuations, custody and visitation, spousal and child support, and post-judgment modifications.

Learn more about Chris and his practice.

At least 3,336 people died in police car chases in the U.S. between 2017 and 2022, including at least five individuals in DC. Black people are killed in police chases at a rate four times that of white drivers.

Since August 14, 2025, there have been 28 federal police chases in Washington, DC. Park Police officers have been part of 22 of these chases, 18 of which resulted in crashes. The pursuits began as traffic stops for nonviolent offenses.

In 2022, the District of Columbia passed the D.C. Comprehensive Policing and Justice Reform Amendment Act of 2022, a bill to protect the safety of motorists, pedestrians, and cyclists, by changing the rules for vehicular pursuits by police officers.

Today, the policy has been revoked. What changed and how did we get here?

In October 2020, a man was driving a rental scooter without a helmet on the sidewalk in the 400 block of Kennedy Street in DC when two separate DC police cars attempted to stop him. When the man continued driving, the police officers switched on the lights in their vehicles and began a three-minute pursuit through neighborhood streets, in the presence of pedestrians and other vehicles. The pursuit at times reached speeds of 45 miles per hour, while driving the wrong way on one-way streets and through seven stop signs, witnesses said. After a chase covering 10 blocks, the driver of the scooter attempted to exit out of an alley on the 700 block of Kennedy Street when he was struck by another driver, later dying at the hospital.

At the time of the crash, police policy forbade pursuit of a vehicle if the only reason was a traffic stop. The two officers involved were prosecuted. In September 2024, one of the officers received a five-and-a-half-year sentence for the murder.

In an effort to increase safety for motorists, pedestrians, and cyclists in DC, the District passed the D.C. Comprehensive Policing and Justice Reform Amendment Act of 2022, wherein law enforcement officers were not to engage in vehicular pursuits of suspects fleeing in motor vehicles unless the officer reasonably believes:

the suspect was involved in a crime of violence or poses an immediate and serious threat to another person
the pursuit is necessary to prevent that threat and is not likely to result in death or serious injury to any person, and
all other options have been exhausted or are unreasonable given the circumstances.

Experts have long studied police pursuits, balancing their potential to stop criminals from doing harm with the way high-speed chases can endanger suspects, officers and innocent passersby alike. The Justice Department funded a 2023 report examining police vehicle pursuits and recommending best practices. In the report, Chuck Wexler — executive director of the Police Executive Research Forum — wrote that pursuits should take place only when two standards have been met: a violent crime has been committed, and the suspect poses an imminent threat to commit another violent crime. If those conditions are not met, Wexler wrote, agencies must find an alternative.

Why was this rolled back?

On August 11, 2025, President Trump issued Executive Order 14333, “Declaring a Crime Emergency in the District of Columbia,” based on his determination that special conditions of an emergency nature existed that required the use of the Metropolitan Police Department for federal purposes. This Executive Order allowed the services of the Police Department of the District to be used for protecting federal property and ensuring conditions necessary for the orderly functioning of the federal government, stating that maintaining public order and safety has a direct impact on the federal government’s ability to operate efficiently to address the nation’s broader interests.

Following the Executive Order, the policy and procedures for federal law enforcement agencies were greatly expanded. Many policies have caused controversy, including changes to rules regarding federal police chases from a strict policy with tight rules to a relaxation of time, place, and alleged crimes for which the federal police can attempt high speed police chases through the streets, roundabouts, and parkways of DC.

During a Presidential cabinet meeting on August 26, 2025, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum announced changes to the United States Park Police. The Union representing these officers posted to its X account on August 27, 2025, warning all criminals USPP FOP bargained a new vehicle pursuit policy with management. If you flee from a traffic stop in DC, we will chase you – and we will catch you. Tell your friends.

By August 31, 2025, The Washington Post had reported ten federal car chases, and six crashes, all of which began as traffic stops for nonviolent crimes. In four of the six crashes, the fleeing suspects struck vehicles that were not part of the pursuit. Court records do not indicate anyone was seriously injured. Seven of the pursuits identified the officer chasing the suspect, and according to court records, five appear to involve the same detective sergeant.

DC police policy also precludes officers from pursuing cars with fake tags, often a sign that the vehicle is stolen. Half of the Park Police pursuits in August involved cars with fake or stolen tags, court records show. Park Police union chairman Kenneth Spencer said in a statement to Fox News Radio with Brian Kilmeade that the policy was temporary and would remain in effect until the end of the crime emergency.

The 30-day emergency expired on September 10, 2025. Since that date, Park Police have engaged in at least five car chases, even though President Trump’s general order stated the pursuit policy would only be in effect for the duration of the crime emergency.

The House of Representatives introduced H.R. 5143 on September 4, 2025, as an attempt to establish standards for law enforcement.

For many Democrats, crime has been an issue since 2020, with the death of George Floyd, which popularized the phrase “defund the police.” Many Democratic politicians have tried to distance themselves from the opinion in the years since. On August 29, 2025, House Democrats joined Republicans to vote in favor of House Bill 5143, which would lower the standards for DC police to engage in vehicular chases of fleeing suspects, specifically, rolling back the D.C. Comprehensive Policing and Justice Reform Amendment Act of 2022.

Questions of safety for DC residents and visitors

The new legislation has angered the DC Council, local advocates, and citizens. Opponents of the legislation have been raising the issue of safety on city streets, stating the high-speed pursuits on crowded city streets can endanger the public, and that DC should be left to decide its own policing policies.

Many local leaders have decried the measures, saying the bills would put residents at risk, while trampling on the city’s limited autonomy. Many fear the increased federal presence will make it more difficult for local authorities to handle an emergency. Following the passage of the bill in the House, DC Council Chairman Phil Mendelson, stated the focus would now shift to the Senate, where at least seven Democrats would have to vote with Republicans to overcome a filibuster.

Representative Glenn Ivey (D-Maryland) is a former DC prosecutor who has experienced firsthand the pain caused by high-speed chases. He warns the change could put the city on the hook for lawsuits filed on behalf of those killed, fearing that when deaths happen, his colleagues in the House won’t be anywhere to be found. “We have diagonal roads…and we’ve got circles,” Ivey explained. “A high-speed chase in the middle of the District of Columbia…is, almost by definition, dangerous. So, you’d better have a really good reason to engage in a pursuit like that.”

On September 25, 2025 Jared Huffman (D-Calif.) and Yassamin Ansari (D-Ariz.) wrote a letter to Interior Secretary Burgum and U.S. Park Police demanding a briefing on these pursuits, recognizing the USPP (United State Park Police) pursuit are among “the most dangerous of police activities,” and writing “it remains unclear what legal authority, if any, currently authorizes the USPP to conduct these dangerous chases, other than presidential fiat.”

Liability in Police Chases

If you were traveling within Washington, DC and suffered injuries as a result of police officers chasing you, or as an innocent driver or bystander simply due to your location, you may have the legal right to pursue compensation for your injuries. Police officers are government representatives and have the duty to make decisions that protect the public and ensure their safety. If an investigation determines a police officer acted negligently, recklessly, or without public safety in mind, you may have the right to pursue a claim for your injuries.

Victims from these high-speed crashes may incur a wide range of injuries including death; gunshot wounds; broken bones and fractures; traumatic brain injuries; paralysis; nerve damage; neck and back injuries; and post-traumatic stress disorder.

Recovery from these claims can include past/present/future medical bills, past lost wages, future loss of earning capacity, loss of consortium, and past and future pain and suffering.

Lawsuits involving governmental representatives are complicated and very different than claims against a private citizen or corporation. Many governmental entities have immunity from claims and special rules exist in regard to these lawsuits. To protect your claims, contact a personal injury attorney to help you understand your rights.

The personal injury lawyers at Joseph, Greenwald & Laake have forty years of experience in Maryland, DC and nationwide. We can help review the facts and circumstances, explain the circumstances where a lawsuit is possible, and evaluate your claim for damages.

Get the facts. Get educated.

A new Maryland law (HB 1018) could be a game-changer for divorcing couples who want to keep their family home without being forced into high-interest refinancing. In this episode of JGL LAW FOR YOU, attorneys David Bulitt and Christopher Castellano explain how mortgage assumptions work, why this law matters, and what it means for families navigating divorce. From avoiding skyrocketing interest rates to preserving stability for children, they break down the practical and financial benefits…and why talking with an experienced lawyer is the key to making the most of this opportunity.

[00:00:00] David Bulitt: Welcome to JGL Law for You. JGL Law for You is a podcast by
lawyers, but not for lawyers. Only on JGL Law for You do we discuss a wide array of
topics to help you navigate the many legal processes, developments in the law, other
current events, and how they may affect you, your family, or your business.

[00:00:20] Today, we’re talking about a law that’s been enacted here in the state of
Maryland, and one that really impacts a lot of people going through divorce. Many laws
are passed by the legislature when it comes to family law issues that don’t have that
much impact, that much influence, and frankly, that much effect on what people do
during the course of a divorce case.

[00:00:40] But today we’ve got something completely different, and to help us walk
through this new law and what it means to you is my friend and law partner, Chris
Castellano. Welcome, Chris.

Chris Castellano: Thank you for having me, David. Always, always a pleasure.

David Bulitt: So, let’s dig right in here. We’re talking about Maryland’s law, HB 1018,
which talks about the assumption [00:01:00] of a mortgage as part of a divorce.
[00:01:02] So tell us about the law, what it does that’s different, how it changes things
up, and why it matters to people.

[00:01:08] Chris Castellano: Yeah, what this really does is create a great opportunity to,
as I kind of referenced, open doors to people engaged in the divorce process. You
know, an assumption in and of itself is not a new concept, as you and I are both well
aware.

[00:01:23] But what this law does is, like I said, open those doors. Previously, what’s
happened in a lot of situations is that, when people are going through a divorce, you’re
left with pretty much two options on the house, right? On the marital home, you either
agree that one person stays in the house and they buy out the interest of the other
party, and you refinance the house, right?

[00:01:45] You get a new loan, fresh loan, fresh terms, etc. Or you just sell the thing,
right? Nobody wins. Nobody’s keeping the house, and you just split the proceeds. What
gets lost in the fray of all this is, well, what about the people that had a loan [00:02:00]
that’s got 12 years left or 18 years left on the term?

[00:02:04] And it’s at something like — what we were looking at before, during COVID
— like 3.3%, 3.0%, 2.95%, right? These percentage numbers that people look at with
wide eyes nowadays, right? Because now we’re looking at 6.5% at the bottom line. So,
what this new law does is that the legislature decided, “You know what? For these divorcing parties, let’s open these doors. Let’s give them an opportunity to make sure that as they enter this next phase of life, they’re not setting themselves up for economic failure with a bad loan or starting back at square zero on a 30-year loan.”

[00:02:50] It mandates that these financial institutions that are in the business of offering
these mortgages offer this type of assumption when it arises in connection with an
absolute [00:03:00] divorce decree.

David Bulitt: Just to lay this foundation a little bit more, what I have found — and I’m
sure the same is true with you — is that there are two big issues here. One issue is that
the interest rates are often, particularly for people who either refinanced or purchased
their home [00:03:12] four, five, six, or seven years ago, significantly lower than what
they might get now if they had to go back out on the marketplace.

[00:03:30] Secondly, of course, some people may not qualify on their own to get a new
mortgage, right? Either because their income is significantly lower than it was
combined, or because the interest rate is so much higher that it makes the payment
difficult for that person, who, under the old world, would be able to pay. Does that make
sense?

Chris Castellano: That’s right. I mean, [00:03:40] when we look at loans, it’s hard to
appreciate the effect of the interest rate. And if someone took out — I’m not a mortgage
originator, I guess we should tell our listeners — I’m not providing financial advice. But
at a base level, you and I run numbers for our clients in these cases.

[00:03:58] And you’ve got [00:04:00] a, let’s say, a $450,000 loan, right? If you’re at
3.0%, then you’re looking at a payment of like, what, $2,500, $2,600, right? A 6.5% loan
could be somewhere in the neighborhood of almost double that for the same term. So,
you do — I should say, you still need to qualify — but as you rightly point out, the
qualification parameters are different, right?

[00:04:26] Qualifying for a refinance of the loan, or a new loan, at a lower income with a
6.5% rate is an entirely different prospect than qualifying for an assumption loan that’s
at a 3% interest rate, with a monthly payment of $2,500 or $2,600.

David Bulitt: Let’s just make sure everyone is clear on the difference between
refinancing and assuming a loan.

[00:04:53] Chris Castellano: Yeah, so refinance is when you have an existing loan and
you are [00:05:00] — I like to think of it as — refreshing the terms in a situation where
you’re changing the players. So, for instance, it’s a couple that’s on the loan and we’re
refinancing to drop the one spouse off, right?

[00:05:22] In most cases, the loan length is going to go back up to 30 years if it’s a
typical conventional loan, and it’s going to be at market rates, generally speaking, right?
Right now, it’s at like 6.5% or so — 6.25% maybe, if you’re lucky.

An assumption, on the other hand, which again, I should say, was always available, but
a lot of people didn’t really take advantage of it, right? What it allows people to do is
take their existing loan, both people on the loan, the spouses on the loan, together, and
say to the bank, “Listen, bank, we’ve got this loan. I’m still [00:06:00] making good
money. We’ve got a divorce, and what I would like to do is take over the loan. I can
handle the loan on my own. I’d like to take it over, but do me a favor: don’t change the
terms on me. I only have 12 years left. I want to keep the 12 years left, and I want to
keep that 3% interest rate, so I’m just dropping the other person off.”

David Bulitt: Does this apply to all types of mortgages? In other words, conventional 30-
year loans, 15-year loans, adjustable rates — every type of mortgage? Or is there some
carving out of those that it doesn’t cover?

[00:06:37] Chris Castellano: So, there are certainly some significant carve-outs, right?
From what I could tell, the carve-outs are predicated on the concept that any loan that
Maryland is talking about, it wants to avoid federal preemption, right? So, any loan that’s
got federal backing is going to be exempted from this statute.

[00:07:00] So you’re talking FHA loans, VA loans, USDA loans, etc. That also includes
banks that are operating on a national scale, depository banks. What we’re really talking
about here are loans from — and I’ll use the specific phrase just to be very technical
and specific — non-depository banking institutions, right? Banks that are not taking
deposits and withdrawals as an ordinary business function, that are offering mortgages
[00:07:32] for the purposes of originating said mortgages, and they are not dealing with
specific federally backed loans like FHA, VA, or USDA loans.

So, like you said, we’re talking about conventional loans, and that does include, in a lot
of ways, jumbo loans, which are, quite frankly, not as heavily used right now — at least
in the last few years. I’m sure they’ll make a comeback at some point once we all start
not thinking about them.

David Bulitt: Yeah, so if I bank, for example, at Bank of America or SunTrust — or
whatever it’s called now, Truist — and I’ve got my mortgage with them, they’re not
obligated under this law to permit the assumption. Is that right?

[00:08:18] Chris Castellano: That’s right. The reason for it is not to disqualify the bigger
loans that a lot of people have. It’s really that these bigger lenders are already operating
under the purview of a lot of federal regulations, and Maryland can’t — they are
preempted by those federal regulations, meaning that Maryland can’t put itself above
those federal laws.

[00:08:48] I would love to have that federalism conversation with you if you want to on a
different day. But as far as this mortgage conversation—

David Bulitt: That’s alright. That’s a whole conversation in and of itself.

Chris Castellano: Yes, exactly. But as far as this conversation, no, it was not done, so
far as I could tell, to disadvantage those going with the big banks, but just because of an
[00:09:00] inability to deal with banks that have federal entanglements.

David Bulitt: But for those of us who may have our mortgage with one of those
nationwide banks, let’s call them, you’re not precluded from going to your lender — that
Bank of America, that SunTrust, that Truist, whoever they may be — and saying,
“Listen, I’d like to try to do this,” right? You can still go to that bank and see if they’ll do it
for you.

[00:09:22] Chris Castellano: That’s right. No, as we opened up here, an assumption is
not a new concept, right? I haven’t talked to you specifically about this in the past, but
I’m sure you’ve done a lot of assumptions. I’ve done assumptions in my cases, and it’s
always been a very useful tactic, right? To deal with the house and the loan in an
advantageous way.

So no, they can certainly go to the big players out there that are doing mortgages to get
an assumption. I like to view this as a mandated disclosure requirement and offering, as
opposed to too much more than that, right? This is forcing these specific banks that
[00:10:00] Maryland can regulate to say, “No, you have to offer divorcing couples this
option.”

David Bulitt: Let me ask you a question about the qualification piece of this. What does
it mean when the statute says you have to qualify?

[00:10:13] Chris Castellano: You know, when you go through the process of originating
a new mortgage, right, if we all remember, you’re giving however many years or months’
worth of pay statements and bank statements, utility statements, and a vial of your
blood, and everything else under the sun. The qualification process for the assumption
is going to be based on the institution, so institution-specific, but it is generally speaking
a lighter process.

[00:10:53] But it’s by no means less important, because the bank still needs to make
sure that they do their due diligence to determine that an individual can still qualify,
meaning that they can still pay that loan and pay it now on their own as opposed to with
a [00:11:00] second individual attached to the loan.

David Bulitt: Does this qualification provision — and I don’t know if you know the answer
to this, and I certainly don’t — allow for a bank that maybe, again, we talk about banks
because they’re buildings because we deal with them, but bank management is a group of people who are together and managing the business of that bank to make money.

So, is there any room for maneuverability for a bank that says, “You know what, we
don’t want to do this. We have to at least let people apply, but they still have to qualify.”
Is there any room for a bank, A, to sort of not qualify people to avoid these loans? And
B, is there motivation — could there be motivation — for those institutions not to permit
these assumptions? In other words, say, “Okay, you’ve applied, but you’re not qualified.”

[00:11:47] Chris Castellano: Yeah, I mean, I would love to know your thoughts and your
experience on this. Assumptions — let me back up — refinances have always been a
straightforward process, right? To dump the other person off the loan. You refinance;
you get a fresh loan. Assumptions were never a straightforward process, and I have
every confidence to believe that’s going to remain the case.

[00:12:20] So to answer your question, does the statute change that? I’ve seen nothing
in the statute that changes the process insofar as it will be easier or harder. To answer
the second part of your question, is there an incentive to the banks? I think that
incentive remains. That incentive remains to prevent assumptions.

I mean, from a business standpoint, you have every incentive under the sun to deny an
assumption, to force people into a brand-new loan for an extra 15 or so years — or
whatever the term limits may be — with a much higher interest rate. I mean, they stand
to gain exorbitantly more money doing that.

David Bulitt: They certainly do. The flip side of that, of course, is that the borrower or the
proposed assumer — if that’s the right word, the person who wants to assume the loan
— can’t afford the new rate, and therefore they sell. They’re going to put the house on
the market, and the bank loses all of the interest because the new buyer uses a different lender. It’s an interesting question.

[00:13:10] Chris Castellano: It is. I mean, and again, you and I can have a more
interesting conversation on that — as though this isn’t already an interesting
conversation — but also on how many mortgages are now being purchased by other
institutions as opposed to individuals, right? I don’t want to step into the fray of politics in
that regard, but I think there is a larger discussion to be had on whether these banks are
fostering mom-and-pop loans for [00:14:00] individual Americans to have properties as
opposed to larger hedge funds, because one of the largest growing segments of
homeowners in America is large hedge funds.

David Bulitt: Let’s shift now to those folks out there who are listening and really want to
get their hands around what this law’s real impact on them is and what they might be
able to do during the divorce process. How can it help me, help my family, help my kids?

[00:14:08] Chris Castellano: Yeah, I mean, I think that the house represents — it’s a
microcosm of the family, right? It’s where the first birthdays, 10th birthdays, retirement parties for family members, funeral wakes — everything happens in the household. It
takes on a personality in and of itself, right?

[00:14:54] There’s no mistake — we’re entering into the Halloween season — that a
genre of horror movies is haunted houses, right? Because they are themselves a
character. We view houses as a personality in and of itself. I say this not as a frolic and
detour, but to build up the concept that the house is an incredibly important feature of
one’s [00:15:00] life because the house represents stability. It represents where routines
are established. It’s where memories are created and fostered.

So, for a lot of people — I mean countless people out there, the vast majority — their
desire in a divorce case, and I’m sure they’ve communicated this to you, is: “I want to
keep the house. I want the kids to stay in the house. I want that stability.” And for the
longest time, up until this law really, for the most part, how to deal with the house has
been kind of a significant speed bump, right? Because if the interest rates are too high,
or the terms are such that the parent who’s acquiring the house, for instance, just can’t
take it on with a refinance, then you’re out of luck.

[00:15:52] This assumption opens that up. It opens up the ability. So, I give credit to the
legislature for really forcing this because we can have a lot of discussions about
whether they’re doing things for the betterment or not. I don’t think there’s any doubt in
this situation: this law is meant to help families and to help families dealing with a
terrible time in their life, which is their divorce, and give them that kind of life preserver
[00:16:19] to say, “No, you know what? We’re going to offer this to you, and we’re going
to make the banks offer it to you.”

Now, whether we’re going to force the banks to approve it is a different story entirely. I
don’t think they can do that. But at least the conversation is now started. And once you
have enough people asking for assumptions, I’ve got to tell you, I don’t know how many
banks are going to get away with just wholesale denials.

David Bulitt: I don’t see any downside at all to this legislation. I mean, we both look at
new laws that either come through committee and to the House — some that pass,
some that don’t — and most of them, one could argue both sides, right? There’s a
reason not to enact this particular piece of legislation. But in this [00:17:00] case, I don’t
see that it hurts anybody. All it can do is be, as you mentioned, a neutral or a positive. If
nothing else, it’s going to have a positive impact on families going through divorce. I
think that’s the main takeaway.

So let me ask you this question. I’m listening to this and saying to myself, “Okay, this is
great. I’ll just call my bank, or I’ll take care of it.” How does getting a lawyer — and you
know how I feel about this, and there’s never a divorce case that comes down the pike
that somebody shouldn’t at least talk to a lawyer for. People are hesitant to spend money, and I certainly get that. I would be too. But in this case, what’s the benefit of
having someone like you help someone navigate this specific issue, both in terms of
negotiating the agreement and looking at the options when it comes to a potential
resolution of financial issues in your divorce case?

[00:17:52] Chris Castellano: Well, yeah, I mean, I’m with you, right? Anytime that there’s
a development in the law or something that could be fiscally [00:18:00] advantageous,
talking to a lawyer first is always — of course, I’m biased — but I do believe that that’s
your first step. An assumption in and of itself is part and parcel to the divorce process.

So more likely than not, you’re going to be talking to someone like yourself or myself to
talk about not even just the house, but child custody and child support and all the other
issues that go along with divorce. But talking to an attorney that is aware of assumptions, that is aware of this new statute, that is aware of how to deal with banks and these mortgage institutions on assumptions, gives the party — our clients — an additional tool in their tool chest, right, to deal with this.

[00:18:46] Because if you talk to a lawyer — or even go at it on your own — that doesn’t
have that background knowledge, then you’re really cutting off your nose to spite your
face, because what this [00:19:00] law is, as you said, it’s only beneficial to the clients.
It’s an opportunity for these clients to come out of the divorce fiscally minded and in a
more stable position. Quite frankly, talking to a lawyer who doesn’t understand this, or
not talking to a lawyer at all, that’s the quickest way to throw away the cost savings that
an assumption provides. So again, cut your nose off to spite your face at your own risk,
as far as I’m concerned.

David Bulitt: Yeah. And this isn’t just a decision for you individually, for those of us who
are listening out there, but it’s a decision that affects your family, affects your children,
affects all the things that, Chris, you mentioned earlier, that people are interested in
protecting.

[00:19:42] And so we live in a soundbite world, right? So, give me two or three
soundbite takeaways that people can take from this discussion that we’ve had today.

[00:19:53] Chris Castellano: Yeah. The Maryland legislature has done a service to
Maryland clients and Maryland couples. [00:20:00] What they’ve done is they’ve
essentially mandated that mortgage lenders offer the opportunity to assume a very
advantageous loan.

[00:20:11] It’s an opportunity for you to stay in your house, maintain stability for your
kids, and do what’s right for your family both emotionally and fiscally. Talking with the
right attorney, like us here at Joseph Greenwald & Lake, can help really set yourself up
in a good way.

[00:20:29] David Bulitt: Alright, Chris, thank you very, very much. I think this has been
incredibly helpful and informative to folks out there. And if people want to ask you more
questions about this law or talk to you about their potential separation and divorce,
what’s the best way for them to get hold of you?

[00:20:43] Chris Castellano: Yeah, by giving me a call at 240-399-7881. That’s my direct
line. I’d be happy to talk to you at any time, not only about this new law, this assumption
law, but also about your separation agreement or case [00:21:00] generally. I’d be
happy to have a conversation.

David Bulitt: Folks, this is such an important, important development in the law. If you
live here in Maryland, have property here in Maryland, do yourselves a favor and give
Chris Castellano a call. Thanks for listening, and we look forward to hearing from you
and seeing you next time on JGL Law for You.

Author: JGL Law

Posts by JGL Law

Start with Halloween: The First Test of the Season

Thanksgiving: Plan Now, Avoid Stress Later

Looking Ahead: Building Better Traditions

A Final Word

Halloween Specific Factors Influencing the Risks

Weekend vs. Weekday

Things to Remember

Safety from the National and State Level

Safety Tips for Parents

Safety Tips for Motorists

Maryland and Virginia Are Contributory Negligence States

Speak to an Experienced Pedestrian Law Attorney

Get the facts. Get educated.

Today, the policy has been revoked. What changed and how did we get here?

Why was this rolled back?

Questions of safety for DC residents and visitors

Liability in Police Chases

Get the facts. Get educated.

Start with Halloween: The First Test of the Season

Thanksgiving: Plan Now, Avoid Stress Later

Looking Ahead: Building Better Traditions

A Final Word

Episode Transcript

Halloween Specific Factors Influencing the Risks

Weekend vs. Weekday

Things to Remember

Safety from the National and State Level

Safety Tips for Parents

Safety Tips for Motorists

Maryland and Virginia Are Contributory Negligence States

Speak to an Experienced Pedestrian Law Attorney

Get the facts. Get educated.

Today, the policy has been revoked. What changed and how did we get here?

Why was this rolled back?

Questions of safety for DC residents and visitors

Liability in Police Chases

Get the facts. Get educated.

Episode Transcript