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
In South Carolina family court, is all social media usage discoverable?
In divorce or child custody cases, I personally don’t like issuing broad discovery requests for the opposing party’s social media usage. Until a
Once an attorney makes an appearance, that attorney can be served with the summons and complaint
If I have knowledge that a family law matter has been filed against an existing client, I will often file my notice of
Supreme Court holds Husband’s successive but timely Rule 59(e) motion stayed Wife’s time to appeal
The March 12, 2025, Supreme Court opinion in Swing v. Swing reinstated an appeal that the Court of Appeals had dismissed as untimely.
