Posted Tuesday, November 27th, 2012 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Family Court Procedure, Litigation Strategy, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Specific
Before 2004, when SCRCP 3(a), was revised, it was strategically advantageous to serve a family court complaint as soon as it was filed. This was
Supreme Court holds that family court temporary order is never automatically stayed by appeal
Posted Wednesday, November 21st, 2012 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Contempt/Enforcement of Orders, Family Court Procedure, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Appellate Decisions, South Carolina Specific
In the November 21, 2012 opinion of Terry v. Terry, 400 S.C. 453, 734 S.E.2d 646 (2012) the South Carolina Supreme Court clarifies the effect of filing
Posted Wednesday, November 21st, 2012 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Family Court Procedure, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Specific
In the November 21, 2012 advance sheet, the South Carolina Supreme Court promulgated new rules regarding family court temporary hearings (pages 5-6) and docketing of
Does South Carolina Rule of Civil Procedure 6(d) violate due process?
Posted Tuesday, November 13th, 2012 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Family Court Procedure, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Specific
I recently defended a motion in which the timing of the submitted affidavits has me considering whether South Carolina Rule of Civil Procedure 6(d) violates due
What makes a good request for admission?
Posted Tuesday, November 13th, 2012 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Family Court Procedure, Litigation Strategy, Not South Carolina Specific, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys
Other than requests for admissions on the authenticity of documents–which can be issued in unlimited numbers--South Carolina Rule of Civil Procedure 36(c) limits a party
What’s so important about financial declarations?
Posted Friday, October 12th, 2012 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Family Court Procedure, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, South Carolina Specific
Financial declarations are often the most important piece of evidence in any family court case. Filling them out and executing them in a cavalier manner
Supreme Court clarifies South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure 3 and 15
Posted Thursday, August 16th, 2012 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Family Court Procedure, South Carolina Appellate Decisions, South Carolina Specific
The August 15, 2012 Supreme Court opinion in Mims v. Babcock Center, 399 S.C. 341, 732 S.E.2d 395 (2012), clarifies issues of civil procedure that have occasionally
South Carolina Supreme Court’s Suspension of Family Court Rule 24 for Title IV-D Cases
Posted Sunday, July 29th, 2012 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Child Support, Contempt/Enforcement of Orders, Family Court Procedure, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Specific
Two different family law attorneys have asked–nay demanded–that I blog about the July 19, 2012 South Carolina Supreme Court Administrative Order suspending application of South
Supreme Court approves parent’s taping of child’s telephone conversation
Posted Friday, July 13th, 2012 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Family Court Procedure, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, Of Interest to General Public, South Carolina Appellate Decisions, South Carolina Specific
Though not a family court appeal, the July 11, 2012 Supreme Court opinion in State v. Whitner, 399 S.C. 547, 732 S.E.2d 861 (2012), has important application to
Hammer holds party cannot collaterally attack family court order in circuit court
Posted Wednesday, June 6th, 2012 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Family Court Procedure, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Appellate Decisions, South Carolina Specific
The June 6, 2012 Court of Appeals opinion in Hammer v. Hammer, 399 S.C. 100, 730 S.E.2d 874 (Ct. App. 2012), holds what I thought was
