Spiers v. Ballou is an unpublished October 2002 opinion from the South Carolina Court of Appeals. I was retained by the estate of a deceased ex-husband to be co-counsel on a cross appeal (both parties appealed) of the divorce order. The issues on appeal were property division and attorney’s fees.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the family court’s award of $50,000.00 in attorney’s fees to ex-husband’s estate, finding that ex-wife’s unreasonable positions on alimony and property division and her conduct during litigation warranted an award of substantial fees. It further affirmed the family court’s decision to award the ex-husband’s estate one half of the appreciation in ex-wife’s home during the time period the parties were married based on his significant contributions to the maintenance of that home.
Mr. Spiers’ estate would not have brought the cross appeal had his ex-wife not appealed and considered the resulting affirmance a victory.
South Carolina’s unjust approach to unvested stock options
A few days ago a colleague called me to discuss an issue he was mediating, specifically how to apportion unvested stock options. This
Court of Appeals opinion unwittingly exposes serious flaws in South Carolina’s Family Court Rules
The July 7, 2021, Court of Appeals opinion in Taylor v. Taylor unwittingly exposes serious flaws in South Carolina’s Family Court Rules–specifically the
I have little doubt that, if raised in the proper case, the ten-day notice requirement in South Carolina Family Court Rule 14(d) will
