Res judicata is a legal doctrine that once a fact has been conclusively legally established between two parties, those parties cannot challenge that prior legal finding. It is a doctrine of judicial convenience. “Res judicata precludes parties from subsequently relitigating issues actually litigated and those that might have been litigated in a prior action.” Duckett v. Goforth, 374 S.C. 446, 464, 649 S.E.2d 72, 81 (Ct. App. 2007). “A party seeking to preclude litigation on the grounds of res judicata must show: (1) identity of the parties; (2) identity of the subject matter; and (3) adjudication of the issue on the merits in the former suit by a court of competent jurisdiction.” Id, 374 S.C. at 465, 649 S.E.2d at 82. One often hears the aphorism “one bite at the apple.” Res judicata prevents that second bite.
Res judicata has many applications in family court. While issues related to children or permanent periodic alimony can be modified, the factual findings in prior final orders cannot be challenged in a subsequent case. Findings in contempt orders and non-emergency protection from domestic abuse orders are also binding. In contrast, any findings/rulings in family court temporary orders are not only not binding, they cannot be used to either party’s prejudice. Rimer v. Rimer, 361 S.C. 521, 527 n.6, 605 S.E.2d 572, 575 n.6 (Ct. App. 2004) (“Temporary hearings are not de facto final hearings, and we adhere to the principle that temporary orders must be without prejudice to the rights of the parties at the final hearing.”) (Emphasis in original).
One cannot litigate factual or legal issues that have previously been conclusively determined between the same parties. That which can be modified can only be modified based on a showing of a subsequent substantial change of circumstances. Once conclusively determined with finality, that which cannot be modified cannot be changed even if the factual basis for the ruling is incorrect. Failure to get the correct result the first time can create a permanent and unfixable injustice.
It’s not easy to repudiate an executed South Carolina domestic relations agreement
Multiple times every year—three times in the past week—I hear from a South Carolina family court litigant who wishes to repudiate an agreement
On October 1, 2025, South Carolina began implementing a new version of Rule 21, SCRFC, addressing the procedures for family court temporary hearings.
What can be addressed in a reconciliation agreement?
I have long thought that reconciliation agreements (also called postnuptial agreements) were of questionable validity. In prenuptial agreements, unmarried parties intend to enter
