Posted Wednesday, July 1st, 2020 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Divorce and Marriage, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Appellate Decisions, South Carolina Specific
A July 1, 2020, Court of Appeals opinion in Swicegood v. Thompson, 431 S.C. 130, 847 S.E.2d 104 (2020), determined that South Carolina code prohibited
Posted Wednesday, June 24th, 2020 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Divorce and Marriage, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Appellate Decisions, South Carolina Specific
The June 17, 2020 South Carolina Supreme Court case of In Re Estate of Brown, 430 S.C. 474, 846 S.E.2d 342 (2020), appears to finally
Reflections on thirty years of marriage
Posted Monday, December 30th, 2019 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Divorce and Marriage, Not South Carolina Specific, Of Interest to General Public
The main thing that differentiates marriages that end in divorce from those that end when death-do-them-part is the sheer stubbornness of the parties involved.... –that
Stone v. Thompson is in the books
Posted Thursday, November 7th, 2019 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Divorce and Marriage, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, Of Interest to General Public, South Carolina Specific
Updating some of my blogs this morning to include citations to Southeastern Reporter and South Carolina Reports, I realized that the petition for rehearing in
In Thornton, Court of Appeals mostly affirms decisions on equitable distribution and fees
Posted Thursday, October 24th, 2019 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Attorney's Fees, Divorce and Marriage, Equitable Distribution/Property Division, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Appellate Decisions, South Carolina Specific
The October 23, 2019, Court of Appeals opinion in Thornton v. Thornton, 428 S.C. 460, 836 S.E.2d 351 (Ct. App. 2019), mostly affirms the family
Posted Sunday, August 4th, 2019 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Divorce and Marriage, Jurisprudence, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, Of Interest to General Public, South Carolina Appellate Decisions, South Carolina Specific
A decade ago, in a blog titled, “Why won’t South Carolina end common-law marriage?,” I expressed my strong dislike of the doctrine by noting, “cases
Is South Carolina heading the wrong path potentially expanding fault divorce?
Posted Tuesday, April 9th, 2019 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Divorce and Marriage, Jurisprudence, Legislation, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, Of Interest to General Public, South Carolina Specific
In 1969 California became the first state to allow no-fault divorce. In 2010 New York became the last state to allow it. In the interim,
Supreme Court holds order establishing common-law marriage is immediately appealable
Posted Thursday, April 4th, 2019 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Appellate Procedure, Divorce and Marriage, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Appellate Decisions, South Carolina Specific
The April 3, 2019 Supreme Court opinion in Stone v. Thompson, 426 S.C. 291, 826 S.E.2d 868 (2019), addresses the appealability of final orders from
Does South Carolina divorce law distinguish marijuana use from abuse?
Posted Friday, September 14th, 2018 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Divorce and Marriage, Jurisprudence, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Specific
One of South Carolina’s four fault grounds for divorce under S.C. Code §20-3-10 is “Habitual drunkenness; provided, that this ground shall be construed to include
Is merely having a “crush” on another marital fault?
Posted Friday, September 7th, 2018 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Divorce and Marriage, Jurisprudence, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Specific
I recently handled oral argument on an appeal that resulted in the unpublished opinion. One unusual aspect of the case was Husband’s focus, and the