Ware v. Ware, 404 S.C. 1, 743 S.E.2d 817 (2013), is a June 2013 Supreme Court opinion reversing the October 2010 Court of Appeals decision in Ware v. Ware, 390 S.C. 493, 702 S.E.2d 390 (Ct. App. 2010). It reverses a family court determination that an Alabama divorce decree did not have priority over a South Carolina divorce decree because Alabama did not have personal jurisdiction over the Wife. Husband argued that Wife was bound by the Alabama court’s determination that it had jurisdiction over her because she had entered a limited appearance to challenge personal jurisdiction and under the application of the “full faith and credit” clause of the United States Constitution, as interpreted by Durfee v. Duke , 375 U.S. 106, 111, 84 S.Ct. 242, 245, 11 L.Ed.2d 186 (1963), she was bound by this determination.
The South Carolina Supreme Court agreed, finding that Wife’s limited appearance to challenge jurisdiction meant that she had fully and fairly litigated the issue of personal jurisdiction despite her subsequent withdrawal from the Alabama action prior to trial. Thus she was bound by the Alabama court’s determination that it had personal jurisdiction over her and the Alabama order had priority over the South Carolina orders. For further information, see: Well it seemed obvious to me
Court of Appeals reverses grant of visitation to grandparents
The February 12, 2025, Court of Appeals opinion in Dendy v. Gamble reversed a family court’s award of visitation to Grandparents. This opinion
I encounter litigants, and sometimes even attorneys, who rest on their pleadings and motions (including returns to motions) to support their requests for
On January 29, 2025, the South Carolina Supreme Court proposed an amendment to Rule 21, SCFCR, to the South Carolina General Assembly. If
