Popular searches: medical lawsuits civil litigation insurance lawsuits help avoid foreclosure

Law Offices of Gerald Solomon, P.A

Main Office

1 Church Street

Suite 910

Rockville, MD 20850

contact office

Focused on You!

Log into the Family Law website at www.solomonfamilylaw.com. The foreclosure website is www.saveyourdream.us.

Summary

Years of Experience	27
Languages	English
Websites	http://saveyourdream.us

Overview

We are a group of independent attorneys who maintain separate law firms but have pooled our resources to better represent Maryland residents in two main areas, family law and foreclosure defense. Our Family Law practice encompasses divorce, child custody, visitation and child support. Foreclosure defenses is a new area of the law that is developing daily. We defend foreclosure actions and at the same time seek mortgage modification.

Our unique setup utilizes online and modern communication to affordably bring experienced attorneys together for you. Our clients have the benefit of individual representation through our independent counsel while utilizing a central pool of information, knowledge and collective reasoning.

Please Contact us for help with your legal issues

Case History

Ruppert

Practice Area: Child Support

Description: Mother and father entered into an agreement for child support and private schooling, however they did not make this a part of their divorce decree. Mother moved to enforce the private school provision with her picking the school. Father defended by claiming that he had a right to pick the school by the terms of the agreement. Solomon represented father.

Outcome: The agreement was entitled to a presumption of validity and the parents are presumed to have entered it in the child's best interests. Held: Father entitled to pick the private school.

North

Practice Area: Child Custody

Description: Gay HIV infected father sought overnight visitation with his three female daughters. Mother objected because of the "homosexual life style" of the father. Solomon represented father.

Outcome: The case was heard in the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland and again in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County. The Court of Special Appeals held that in order to restrict visitation rights the mother had to show a nexus between the complained of practice and harm to the child. The trial court, on remand, held that there was no credible evidence that the father exposed the children to a "homosexual lifestyle." The trial court further found no evidence that the father posed a threat of HIV infection to his children. Held: Overnight visitation ordered.

"Eastern Shore Custody"

Practice Area: Child Custody

Description: The title given is to protect the parties and children. Mother accused father of sexually abusing his two children, a boy and girl. Mother had four expert witnesses who testified to the alleged abuse. Father had one expert who testified on his behalf. Solomon represented the father.

Outcome: After a twenty-three day trial which involved extensive cross-examination of the experts, the court found no sexual abuse and granted the father overnight visitation.

"Arson case"

Practice Area: Foreclosure

Description: Note that this is not a foreclosure case, but nonetheless very interesting. Evidence showed that Defendant solicited multiple people to burn down her failing business. Eventually the business (and the entire block) burned to the ground. Defendant was charged with conspiracy to commit arson, arson, and an accessory after the fact. Evidence did not show that Defendant committed the arson or that Defendant was an accessory after the fact. Evidence did show that Defendant solicited people to commit the arson, but did not identify the person that the Defendant solicited. Jury found Defendant not guilty on the arson and accessory after the fact counts, but convicted on the conspiracy county. Defendant appealed. Solomon represented the Defendant in the capacity of strategist during trial and laid out the theory for the appellate brief and argument.

Outcome: Court of Special Appeals found that the charge of conspiracy involved a meeting of the minds. Since the State could not identify the alleged co-conspirator there could be no meeting of the minds. Held: Conviction overturned.