Archive for the ‘Attorney’s Fees’ Category
Posted Wednesday, February 1st, 2012 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Attorney's Fees, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Appellate Decisions, South Carolina Specific
1 Comment »
The February 1, 2012 Supreme Court decision Chisholm v. Chisholm caps decade-long litigation into the amount of attorneys fees Husband is required to pay Wife. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court’s majority opinion unwittingly implicates issue preservation concerns that might seem to require a prevailing party on appeal in the Court of Appeals to appeal a favorable [...]
Tags: Attorney's Fees, South Carolina Supreme Court
Posted in Attorney's Fees, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Appellate Decisions, South Carolina Specific | 1 Comment »
Posted Thursday, December 22nd, 2011 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Attorney's Fees, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Appellate Decisions, South Carolina Specific
No Comments »
In the December 14, 2011 opinion in Lewin v. Lewin (in which I represented the losing appellant, though I was not his trial counsel), the Court of Appeals affirmed multiple challenges Father brought to the lower court’s award of $18,955 in fees and costs to Mother. Lewin represents an interesting fact pattern in that the parties [...]
Tags: Attorney's Fees, Credibility, South Carolina Court of Appeals
Posted in Attorney's Fees, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Appellate Decisions, South Carolina Specific | No Comments »
Posted Monday, November 14th, 2011 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Alimony/Spousal Support, Attorney's Fees, Child Custody, Child Support, Contempt/Enforcement of Orders, Department of Social Services/Child Abuse and Neglect, Divorce and Marriage, Equitable Division/Property Division, Family Court Procedure, Jurisprudence, Mediation/Alternative Dispute Resolution, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, Of Interest to General Public, Paternity, South Carolina Specific
7 Comments »
This blog is inspired by myriad important family law issues that current South Carolina case law and statute don’t adequately answer. None of these questions is merely academic, as each has come up at least once in my eighteen years of family law practice. I have firm opinions on the correct answer to some of [...]
Posted in Alimony/Spousal Support, Attorney's Fees, Child Custody, Child Support, Contempt/Enforcement of Orders, Department of Social Services/Child Abuse and Neglect, Divorce and Marriage, Equitable Division/Property Division, Family Court Procedure, Jurisprudence, Mediation/Alternative Dispute Resolution, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, Of Interest to General Public, Paternity, South Carolina Specific | 7 Comments »
Posted Tuesday, November 1st, 2011 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Attorney's Fees, Child Support, Equitable Division/Property Division, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Appellate Decisions, South Carolina Specific
No Comments »
In the October 31, 2011 opinion in Burch v. Burch, 395 S.C. 318, 717 S.E.2d 757 (2011), the South Carolina Supreme Court finally ratifies the passive versus active gain distinction the Court of Appeals has used for years in determining the valuation date for marital assets that change value between the date of filing and the [...]
Tags: Attorney's Fees, Child Support, Equitable Division/Property Division, Marital Litigation in South Carolina, Private School Tuition Support, Roy T. Stuckey, South Carolina Supreme Court
Posted in Attorney's Fees, Child Support, Equitable Division/Property Division, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Appellate Decisions, South Carolina Specific | No Comments »
Posted Tuesday, September 13th, 2011 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Attorney's Fees, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, Rules of Professional (Lawyer) Conduct, South Carolina Appellate Decisions, South Carolina Specific
3 Comments »
The September 12, 2011 public reprimand issued by the South Carolina Supreme Court in In the Matter of Michael James Sarratt, 394 S.C. 209, 715 S.E.2d 337 (2011), perpetuates its opaque guidance on the proper handling of flat fees. Sarratt handled some of his work on a flat fee basis. Because he treated these fees as [...]
Tags: Attorney's Fees, Rules of Professional Conduct, South Carolina Supreme Court
Posted in Attorney's Fees, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, Rules of Professional (Lawyer) Conduct, South Carolina Appellate Decisions, South Carolina Specific | 3 Comments »
Posted Wednesday, August 3rd, 2011 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Alimony/Spousal Support, Attorney's Fees, Equitable Division/Property Division, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Appellate Decisions, South Carolina Specific
1 Comment »
N.B., the Court of Appeals opinion in Pittman v. Pittman was subsequently refiled with a different analysis on the transmutation issue. See Rearranging the deck chairs Thomas F. McDow is a friend of mine and an exceptional attorney. When I noted that the appeal he pursued in Pittman v. Pittman, resulting in a published decision today [August [...]
Tags: Alimony/Spousal Support, Attorney's Fees, Equitable Division/Property Division, South Carolina Court of Appeals, Thomas F. McDow
Posted in Alimony/Spousal Support, Attorney's Fees, Equitable Division/Property Division, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Appellate Decisions, South Carolina Specific | 1 Comment »
Posted Wednesday, June 29th, 2011 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Attorney's Fees, Family Court Procedure, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Specific
No Comments »
South Carolina attorneys are expected to be collegial. Part of that collegiality is a reluctance to file motions to compel discovery responses and a frequent acceptance of discovery responses that are incomplete or evasive. Another part of that collegiality is a general understanding that a demand for fees as part of a motion to compel [...]
Tags: Attorney's Fees, Discovery, Family Court Procedure
Posted in Attorney's Fees, Family Court Procedure, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Specific | No Comments »
Posted Tuesday, June 21st, 2011 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Attorney's Fees, Jurisprudence, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Specific
4 Comments »
The June 21, 2011 South Carolina Supreme Court opinion in Ex Parte Brown finally establishes “that the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution is implicated when an attorney is appointed by the court to represent an indigent litigant. In such circumstances, the attorney’s services constitute property entitling the attorney to [...]
Tags: Attorney's Fees, Jurisprudence, South Carolina Supreme Court
Posted in Attorney's Fees, Jurisprudence, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Specific | 4 Comments »
