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.
Court of Appeals affirms Mother can be held in contempt for publishing book critical of Father
The March 5, 2025, Court of Appeals opinion in Clark v. Clark, 446 S.C. 909, 17 S.E.2d 917 (Ct. App. 2025), affirms the
The wrong times to be starting marital or custody litigation
One of my earliest blogs addressed the idea that the family court only has jurisdiction over a child’s custody for a period of
Don’t ask your attorney to alter his or her preparation procedure
Every trial lawyer with even a few years of practice develops set procedures to prepare for hearings and trial. In my case there
