Bailey v. Bailey is an unpublished October 2000 opinion from the South Carolina Court of Appeals.  After the appeal briefs had been drafted and filed, Mr. Forman was retained by Mr. Bailey solely to handle oral argument.

Mr. Bailey raised three issues on appeal: 1) whether there was sufficient evidence to award his wife a physical cruelty divorce; 2) whether he had use of and disposed $17,000.00 in cash that was in existence at the time he filed the action; and 3) whether the family court erred in awarding his ex-wife approximately 20% of her attorney’s fees.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the family court’s decision.  It noted that the lower court’s determinations on the first two issues were based, in part, on credibility determinations made in the ex-wife’s favor by the family court.  Such determinations are given great deference by the appellate courts.  The Court of Appeals further found independent evidence to support ex-wife’s positions on these two issues. Because the Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s decision on these two issues, and because ex-husband’s argument was that it was these erroneous determinations that made the fee award improper, the Court of Appeals also affirmed the lower court’s award of attorney’s fees.

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