Emery v. Smith, 361 S.C. 207, 603 S.E.2d 598 (Ct.App.2004), is a published September 2004 opinion from the South Carolina Court of Appeals. I was retained to defend an appeal of a family court order requiring Mr. Smith to reimburse his ex-wife (my client) for her 25% share of his military retirement benefits that he had failed to pay her over an approximate ten-year period. At trial in the family court, Mr. Smith had argued that laches barred Ms. Emery’s claim but the family court rejected this defense. Mr. Smith raised the same defense on appeal.
The Court of Appeals again rejected Mr. Smith’s laches defense and held in Ms. Emery’s favor. It found that his failure to notice his ex-wife of his retirement, as required under the parties’ order, barred his laches claim. Because Ms. Emery would not know of her entitlement to retirement benefits until she was informed by Mr. Smith of his retirement, the Court of Appeals found that any delay in enforcing her rights to this retirement was Mr. Smith’s doing, and thus the delay was not unreasonable on her part.
This appeal was part of my inspiration for the lecture The Laches Defense in Family Court.
A sizable portion of folks contacting my office seeking representation are seeking an attorney who is “a fighter.” They will often use canine
Supreme Court extends deadline to file post-trial motions
On April 30, 2026, rule changes proposed by the South Carolina Supreme Court went into effect. These rule changes extend the deadline to
Everybody has a plan until they get punched in the face
Discussing a braggadocios future opponent’s ideas on how to he was going to defeat the heretofore undefeated Mike Tyson, Tyson noted, “everybody has
