Archive for the ‘Jurisprudence’ Category
Posted Wednesday, May 22nd, 2013 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Jurisprudence, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, Of Interest to General Public, South Carolina Appellate Decisions, South Carolina Specific
No Comments »
South Carolina is one of the few states with an explicit right to privacy within the state constitution. S.C. Const. art. I, §10. One of my early legal interests and my first published piece on the law regarded our state’s constitutional protection of the right to privacy. When“Privacy Rights in South Carolina After Singleton v. State” [...]
Tags: Jurisprudence, Privacy Rights, South Carolina Supreme Court
Posted in Jurisprudence, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, Of Interest to General Public, South Carolina Appellate Decisions, South Carolina Specific | No Comments »
Posted Wednesday, May 1st, 2013 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Contempt/Enforcement of Orders, Family Court Procedure, Jurisprudence, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, Of Interest to General Public, South Carolina Specific
2 Comments »
Two years after the United States Supreme Court reversed the South Carolina Supreme Court in Turner v. Rodgers, 131 S.Ct. 2507 (2011), I see no evidence that our family court system has taken any of Turner’s ruling to heart. This is partially the fault of our state Supreme Court, which has failed to exercise its [...]
Tags: Contempt Enforcement Rule to Show Cause, Family Court Procedure, Jurisprudence
Posted in Contempt/Enforcement of Orders, Family Court Procedure, Jurisprudence, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, Of Interest to General Public, South Carolina Specific | 2 Comments »
Posted Tuesday, February 12th, 2013 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Child Custody, Jurisprudence, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, Of Interest to General Public, South Carolina Specific
7 Comments »
Unbeknownst to me until last week, on December 2, 2012 the South Carolina Supreme Court denied certiorari in the case of Moeller v. Moeller, 394 S.C. 365, 714 S.E.2d 898 (Ct. App. 2011), thus enshrining into South Carolina appellate case law one of the stupidest bases to award (heck, reverse) custody that our appellate courts [...]
Tags: Child Custody, Jurisprudence
Posted in Child Custody, Jurisprudence, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, Of Interest to General Public, South Carolina Specific | 7 Comments »
Posted Thursday, January 24th, 2013 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Child Custody, Jurisprudence, Not South Carolina Specific, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys
2 Comments »
While our family court jurisdictional statute, S.C. Code § 63-3-530(42), allows judges “to order joint or divided custody where the court finds it is in the best interests of the child,” South Carolina case law looks unfavorable on splitting custody of children. See e.g., Patel v. Patel, 359 S.C. 515, 599 S.E.2d 114, 121 (2004) [...]
Tags: Child Custody, Jurisprudence, Split Custody
Posted in Child Custody, Jurisprudence, Not South Carolina Specific, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys | 2 Comments »
Posted Monday, January 14th, 2013 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Family Court Procedure, Jurisprudence, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, Of Interest to General Public, South Carolina Specific
No Comments »
Ever since a local family court judge got defrocked for presiding in a case in which she had an alleged conflict, South Carolina family court judges have often been recusing themselves when there is a claim of conflict, bias, or improper conduct. This has, unwittingly, led to what I label pro se judge shopping, in [...]
Tags: Code of Judicial Conduct, Ex-Parte Communications, Family Court Procedure, Judge Shopping, Jurisprudence
Posted in Family Court Procedure, Jurisprudence, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, Of Interest to General Public, South Carolina Specific | No Comments »
Posted Thursday, January 10th, 2013 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Equitable Division/Property Division, Jurisprudence, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Specific
No Comments »
Individual Retirement Accounts (IRA) and 401k account assets are not as valuable as an equivalent amount of cash. With some exceptions there is a 10% penalty for withdrawing from such accounts prior to the account holder turning age 59 ½. Other than Roth-IRAs these accounts are also subject to income tax when funds are withdrawn. [...]
Tags: Cindy MacAulay, Dixon Hughes Goodman LLP, Equitable Division/Property Division, Jurisprudence
Posted in Equitable Division/Property Division, Jurisprudence, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Specific | No Comments »
Posted Thursday, January 3rd, 2013 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Jurisprudence, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Appellate Decisions, South Carolina Specific
No Comments »
If you read every 2012 published appeal of a South Carolina family court case you would be reading 18 opinions: five from the Supreme Court and the remainder from the Court of Appeals. Eighteen opinions is barely half of the 35 such published opinions of 2011. This dearth of published opinions insures that unanswered questions [...]
Tags: Jurisprudence, Published Opinions
Posted in Jurisprudence, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Appellate Decisions, South Carolina Specific | No Comments »
Posted Sunday, October 21st, 2012 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Divorce and Marriage, Jurisprudence, Not South Carolina Specific, Of Interest to General Public
4 Comments »
On October 18, 2012, in 2-1 decision in the case of Windsor v. United States, 699 F. 3d 169 (2nd. Cir. 2012), the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit concluded that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) violates equal protection and is therefore unconstitutional. Many Supreme Court watchers believe this [...]
Tags: Defense of Marriage Act, Homosexual Marriage, Windsor v. United States
Posted in Divorce and Marriage, Jurisprudence, Not South Carolina Specific, Of Interest to General Public | 4 Comments »
