In 2012 South Carolina amended the alimony modification statute, S.C. Code § 20-3-170(B), to include specific factors for the family court to consider on whether to modify or terminate alimony when a supporting spouse retires. Those factors are:

(1) whether retirement was contemplated when alimony was awarded;
(2) the age of the supporting spouse;
(3) the health of the supporting spouse;
(4) whether the retirement is mandatory or voluntary;
(5) whether retirement would result in a decrease in the supporting spouse’s income; and
(6) any other factors the court sees fit.

This code section, and the case of Smith v. Smith, 359 S.C. 393, 597 S.E.2d 188 (Ct.App.2004), authorize a request to modify or terminate alimony based upon retirement to be brought on a motion in the original case, although Smith suggests “filing a new action for a modification may be preferable.” Certainly when the supporting spouse wishes to develop evidence to support the modification claim, or when factual disputes are likely, a new action is advisable. If the supporting spouse wishes to modify or terminate alimony prior to trial, a motion for temporary relief can always accompany the new action.

As of April 17, 2015, no reported South Carolina cases interpret S.C. Code § 20-3-170(B).

Put Mr. Forman’s experience, knowledge, and dedication to your service for any of your South Carolina family law needs.

Recent Blog Posts

In South Carolina family court, is all social media usage discoverable?

In divorce or child custody cases, I personally don’t like issuing broad discovery requests for the opposing party’s social media usage.  Until a

[ + ] Read More

Once an attorney makes an appearance, that attorney can be served with the summons and complaint

If I have knowledge that a family law matter has been filed against an existing client, I will often file my notice of

[ + ] Read More

Supreme Court holds Husband’s successive but timely Rule 59(e) motion stayed Wife’s time to appeal

The March 12, 2025, Supreme Court opinion in Swing v. Swing reinstated an appeal that the Court of Appeals had dismissed as untimely.

[ + ] Read More