Closely divided Supreme Court approves marketability and lack of control discount to family-owed business

May 15, 2020

In a May 13, 2020 opinion in Clark v. Clark, a closely divided South Carolina Supreme Court approves both a marketability and lack of control

Supreme Court holds Rule 60(a), SCRCP, motion is proper procedure to correct potential scrivener’s error in court-approved equitable distribution agreement

May 14, 2020

The May 13, 2020, Supreme Court opinion in Landry v. Landry addresses the proper procedure to correct a potential scrivener’s error in a court-approved equitable

Pet custody

May 6, 2020

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

December 2, 2019

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Unpublished Supreme Court opinion in Conits demonstrates the effect of de novo standard of review

November 20, 2019

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

October 24, 2019

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

Nelson demonstrates the problems of inaccurate or incomplete financial disclosure when resolving equitable distribution

August 23, 2019

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

Thompson finds Rule 60(b)(5), SCRCP, does not give family court subject matter jurisdiction to modify equitable distribution

August 7, 2019

The August 7, 2019 Court of Appeals opinion in Thompson v. Thompson, 428 S.C. 142, 833 S.E.2d 274 (Ct. App. 2019), holds that Rule 60(b)(5),