Posted Wednesday, January 29th, 2020 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Alimony/Spousal Support, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Appellate Decisions, South Carolina Specific
On January 16, 2020 the South Carolina Supreme Court denied certiorari in Moore v. Moore, 427 S.C. 26, 828 S.E.2d 224 (Ct. App. 2019). After
Is there a ceiling on alimony or child support?
Posted Friday, December 6th, 2019 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Alimony/Spousal Support, Child Support, Jurisprudence, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Specific
An issue more philosophical than legal is whether there should be a ceiling on alimony and (especially) child support awards. On one hand, alimony (and
The difficulties of predicting alimony reduction on retirement
Posted Tuesday, December 3rd, 2019 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Alimony/Spousal Support, Litigation Strategy, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Specific
In 2012 South Carolina passed a statute, S.C. Code § 20-3-170(B), in which one subsection set forth criteria for the family courts to consider when
Marital property as lump sum alimony
Posted Monday, December 2nd, 2019 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Alimony/Spousal Support, Equitable Distribution/Property Division, Litigation Strategy, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Specific
There are occasionally cases in which a spouse who would typically pay significant permanent periodic alimony as part of a marital dissolution has destroyed his
Posted Friday, September 13th, 2019 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Alimony/Spousal Support, Litigation Strategy, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, Of Interest to General Public, South Carolina Specific
When I first began practicing family law twenty-five years ago it was almost unheard of for South Carolina wives to be ordered to pay alimony.
Hagood opinion establishes important points on transmutation and alimony
Posted Sunday, July 21st, 2019 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Alimony/Spousal Support, Equitable Distribution/Property Division, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Appellate Decisions, South Carolina Specific
The July 17, 2019 Court of Appeals opinion in Hagood v. Hagood, 427 S.C. 642, 832 S.E.2d 609 (Ct. App, 2019), establishes important points on
Alimony for the less ambitious spouse
Posted Friday, June 7th, 2019 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Alimony/Spousal Support, Jurisprudence, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, Of Interest to General Public
On June 6, 2019, I argued an appeal in the Court of Appeals that involved a novel issue that I expect to become increasingly common.
Unpublished Court of Appeals opinion does the unprecedented
Posted Wednesday, May 15th, 2019 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Alimony/Spousal Support, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Appellate Decisions, South Carolina Specific
For the 25 years I have been practicing family law no published South Carolina appellate opinion has approved an award of rehabilitative alimony. While I
Posted Monday, April 8th, 2019 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Alimony/Spousal Support, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Appellate Decisions, South Carolina Specific
When, in 1990, South Carolina enacted its current alimony statute, S.C. Code § 20-3-130, it provided three grounds to automatically terminate permanent periodic alimony: 1)
Posted Wednesday, March 20th, 2019 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Alimony/Spousal Support, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Appellate Decisions, South Carolina Specific
The March 20, 2019, South Carolina Supreme Court opinion in Sweeney v. Sweeney, 420 S.C. 69, 800 S.E.2d 148 (2019), “establishes” something I had assumed