Posted Wednesday, July 2nd, 2014 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Alimony/Spousal Support, Attorney's Fees, 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 2, 2014 Supreme Court opinion in Crossland v. Crossland, 408 S.C. 443, 759 S.E.2d 419 (2014), completely reverses the prior Court of Appeals opinion and
Posted Wednesday, March 5th, 2014 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Alimony/Spousal Support, Jurisprudence, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Appellate Decisions, South Carolina Specific
South Carolina family law’s approach to alimony continues to reflect an antiquated view of gender roles. South Carolina is the only state in which a
Court of Appeals finds family court improperly determined downsized husband’s earning capacity
Posted Wednesday, January 22nd, 2014 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
In the January 15, 2014 opinion of Burgess v. Burgess, 407 S.C. 98, 753 S.E.2d 566 (Ct. App. 2014), the Court of Appeals reversed and
Posted Wednesday, August 14th, 2013 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
As noted in a blog earlier this year, I have despaired that our South Carolina appellate courts would ever find the requisite “ninety or more
Supreme Court alters equitable distribution award and reverses reservation of alimony
Posted Thursday, February 21st, 2013 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Alimony/Spousal Support, Attorney's Fees, Equitable Distribution/Property Division, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Appellate Decisions, South Carolina Specific
N.B., on May 8, 2013, the South Carolina Supreme Court slightly modified its original opinion. For more information read Supreme Court reconsiders equitable distribution of marital
Is there ever sufficient evidence of “continued cohabitation” to terminate alimony?
Posted Wednesday, January 30th, 2013 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
I occasionally get telephone calls from men whose ex-wife’s are receiving alimony but also appear to be living with a boyfriend. They want to know
Posted Wednesday, January 30th, 2013 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Alimony/Spousal Support, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Appellate Decisions, South Carolina Specific
Some of the more cryptic opinions to come out of the South Carolina Supreme Court simply state “We granted a writ of certiorari to review
Court of Appeals holds alimony agreement not ambiguous
Posted Thursday, January 3rd, 2013 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Alimony/Spousal Support, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Appellate Decisions, South Carolina Specific
In the December 28, 2012 opinion in Gaffney v. Gaffney, 401 S.C. 216, 736 S.E.2d 683 (Ct. App. 2012), the South Carolina Court of Appeals reversed
Posted Wednesday, December 12th, 2012 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
In the December 12, 2012 opinion of King v. King, 400 S.C. 611, 735 S.E.2d 551 (Ct. App. 2012), the Court of Appeals affirmed the family
Deposing alleged paramours before filing to terminate alimony
Posted Friday, September 28th, 2012 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Alimony/Spousal Support, Divorce and Marriage, Litigation Strategy, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Specific
In South Carolina even adultery that occurs during the marital dissolution litigation period is sufficient to terminate alimony. Further adultery can be “proven” through circumstantial
