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.
Best practice is to blind courtesy-copy clients on emails to opposing counsel
I have long believed it to be best practice to courtesy copy clients on all emails one sends in that client’s case. Doing
Supreme Court remands for new custody trial based on stale record
On November 23, 2022, the South Carolina Supreme Court partially granted a writ of certiorari, and remanded the case of Rossington v. Rossington
Maybe you’re simply a bad parent
A sizable portion of my initial consults are with parents frustrated in achieving their custody or visitation goals in the family court. Often
