The family court can require a spouse to purchase or maintain life insurance to secure an alimony obligation if the court finds “special circumstances.” S.C. Code Ann. § 20-3-130(D) lists the considerations the family court may use in making this determination:
In making an award of alimony or separate maintenance and support, the court may make provision for security for the payment of the support including, but not limited to, requiring the posting of money, property, and bonds and may require a spouse, with due consideration of the cost of premiums, insurance plans carried by the parties during marriage, insurability of the payor spouse, the probable economic condition of the supported spouse upon the death of the payor spouse, and any other factors the court may deem relevant, to carry and maintain life insurance so as to assure support of a spouse beyond the death of the payor spouse.
Smith v. Smith, 386 S.C. 251, 687 S.E.2d 720 (Ct.App. 2009) further clarifies what is required before the court can require such life insurance:
The family court may order the payor spouse to obtain life insurance as security for an alimony or child support obligation if the supported spouse can demonstrate the existence of special circumstances with reference to her need for the security and the payor spouse’s ability to provide it. In considering whether the supported spouse has demonstrated a need for such security, the family court should consider the supported spouse’s age, health, income earning ability, and accumulated assets. If a need for security is found, the family court should then consider the payor spouse’s ability to secure the award with life insurance by considering “the payor spouse’s age, health, income earning ability, accumulated assets, insurability, cost of premiums, and insurance plans carried by the parties during the marriage.
Id., 386 S.C. at 264 (citations omitted).
However, one is not required to show a “compelling reason” before life insurance may be ordered to secure an alimony award. The lower burden of proving a “special circumstance” is all that is required. Wooten v. Wooten, 364 S.C. 532, 615 S.E.2d 98, 108 (2005).
Court of Appeals affirms Mother can be held in contempt for publishing book critical of Father
The March 5, 2025, Court of Appeals opinion in Clark v. Clark, 446 S.C. 909, 17 S.E.2d 917 (Ct. App. 2025), affirms the
The wrong times to be starting marital or custody litigation
One of my earliest blogs addressed the idea that the family court only has jurisdiction over a child’s custody for a period of
Don’t ask your attorney to alter his or her preparation procedure
Every trial lawyer with even a few years of practice develops set procedures to prepare for hearings and trial. In my case there
