Posted Wednesday, December 9th, 2020 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Alimony/Spousal Support, Child Custody, Equitable Distribution/Property Division, South Carolina Appellate Decisions
The December 9, 2020, Court of Appeals opinion in Jackson v. Jackson, 432 S.C. 415, 853 S.E.2d 344 (Ct.App. 2020), demonstrates the problems that can
Posted Thursday, October 22nd, 2020 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Alimony/Spousal Support, Attorney's Fees, Child Support, Equitable Distribution/Property Division, Family Court Procedure, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Appellate Decisions, South Carolina Specific
The October 21, 2020 South Carolina Court of Appeals opinion in Rogers v. Rogers, 432 S.C. 168, 851 S.E.2d 447 (Ct.App. 2020), partially answers the
Posted Tuesday, October 13th, 2020 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Equitable Distribution/Property Division, Litigation Strategy, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Specific
With the October 15th tax deadline approaching, I am receiving emails from numerous clients regarding disputes with their estranged spouse over how to file last
Posted Friday, May 15th, 2020 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Equitable Distribution/Property Division, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Appellate Decisions, South Carolina Specific
In a May 13, 2020 opinion in Clark v. Clark, 430 S.C. 167, 843 S.E.2d 498 (2020), a closely divided South Carolina Supreme Court approves
Posted Thursday, May 14th, 2020 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Equitable Distribution/Property Division, Family Court Procedure, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Appellate Decisions, South Carolina Specific
The May 13, 2020, Supreme Court opinion in Landry v. Landry, 430 S.C. 153, 843 S.E.2d 491 (2020), addresses the proper procedure to correct a
Posted Wednesday, May 6th, 2020 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Equitable Distribution/Property Division, Jurisprudence, Law and Culture, Not South Carolina Specific, Of Interest to General Public
Local family law attorney Tosha Jean Kotz has an excellent article, “Dogs & Divorce,” in the most recent SC Lawyer magazine. The article briefly discusses
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
Unpublished Supreme Court opinion in Conits demonstrates the effect of de novo standard of review
Posted Wednesday, November 20th, 2019 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Appellate Procedure, Equitable Distribution/Property Division, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Appellate Decisions, South Carolina Specific
Last week I blogged about how the Supreme Court’s decisions in Lewis and Stoney–mandating a de novo standard of appellate review of family court factual
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 Friday, August 23rd, 2019 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Equitable Distribution/Property Division, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Appellate Decisions, South Carolina Specific
The August 21, 2019 Court of Appeals opinion in Nelson v. Nelson, 428 S.C. 152, 833 S.E.2d 432 (Ct. App. 2019), demonstrates the problems of
