Tranfield v. Tranfield resulted in unpublished opinions from the Court of Appeals in 2018 and from the Supreme Court in 2019. After a trial in which the family court awarded Wife custody of the parties’ minor children, required Husband to pay permanent periodic alimony and $50,000 of Wife’s attorney’s fees and sua sponte required Husband’s visitation to be terminated, Husband appealed. Wife’s trial counsel was conflicted out of the case when she changed law firms. Her initial appellate counsel subsequently became lead counsel for the Office of Disciplinary Counsel. Wife then retained me to handle oral argument in the Court of Appeals.

The Court of Appeals affirmed most of the issues Husband appealed. It agreed the family court had made some small computational error on equitable distribution and reduced the amount Husband had to pay Wife to equalize equitable distribution by $1,750. It also held that the family court had improperly delegated Husband’s ability to regain unsupervised visitation to the his and his daughter’s therapists and eliminated that option (why Husband appealed an issue that worked to his favor is something I never understood). The Court of Appeals affirmed the attorney fee award, the requirement that Husband’s visitation be supervised, and the award of permanent periodic alimony.

Husband then petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari solely on the issue of the attorney fee award. The Supreme Count granted this request. After oral argument, the Supreme Court dismissed the writ of certiorari as improvidently granted.

Put Mr. Forman’s experience, knowledge, and dedication to your service for any of your South Carolina family law needs.

Recent Blog Posts

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

[ + ] Read More

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

[ + ] Read More

Does the ten-day notice requirement in South Carolina Family Court Rule 14(d) violate procedural due process?

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

[ + ] Read More