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 [...]
Archive for the ‘Attorney’s Fees’ Category
More mixed signals from South Carolina Supreme Court on handling flat fees
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 [...]
At least he got the laptop back
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 [...]
Disloyal collegiality in the prosecution and non prosecution of motions to compel
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 [...]
Indignance over representing indigent costs South Carolina attorney
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 [...]
Revealing or shielding a family court attorney’s itemized statement of time spent
An attorney’s itemized statement of time spent on a case can be a valuable piece of information for an opposing party and that party’s attorney. Knowing what work the other party’s attorney has done can provide insight into that party’s strategy and focus. That is why an attorney’s billing records are considered privileged material, not [...]
South Carolina appellate courts continue to interpret cohabitation to terminate alimony narrowly in favor of supported spouses; failing to challenge fee affidavit fatal to claim that fee award of $126,797.30 was excessive
The March 16, 2011 Court of Appeals opinion in Biggins v. Burdette, 392 S.C. 241, 708 S.E.2d 237 (Ct.App. 2011), continues the trend of the South Carolina appellate courts to interpret “cohabitation” strictly against an obligor seeking to terminate alimony. South Carolina law terminates alimony “upon the … continued cohabitation of the supported spouse…” S.C. Code Ann. [...]
Maybe we’re taking the deference to the family court judge’s credibility determinations too far?
The February 23, 2011 Court of Appeals opinion in Reiss v. Reiss, 392 S.C. 198, 708 S.E.2d 799 (Ct.App 2011) makes me question whether the appellate courts are taking the deference to family court judge’s credibility findings too far. In Reiss, Husband got beaten miserably at trial and he didn’t obtain any relief from this appeal. [...]