A retired family court judge’s view of the import of Lewis v. Lewis
Posted Thursday, May 12th, 2011 by Barry Knobel
Filed under Family Court Procedure, Jurisprudence, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Appellate Decisions, South Carolina Specific
From guest blogger, the Formerly Honorable Barry W. Knobel. I jokingly refer to Barry W. Knobel as “formerly honorable” because he stepped down from the family
Posted Wednesday, May 11th, 2011 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, Rules of Professional (Lawyer) Conduct, South Carolina Appellate Decisions, South Carolina Specific
As someone who has an expansive web site and blog devoted, in part, to marketing my family law practice, I am highly interested in Supreme
Supreme Court authorizes use of SCRCP 60(b)(5) to right obvious injustice
Posted Wednesday, May 11th, 2011 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Alimony/Spousal Support, Equitable Distribution/Property Division, Family Court Procedure, Jurisprudence, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Appellate Decisions, South Carolina Specific
The 2006 Court of Appeals opinion in Simmons v. Simmons, 370 S.C. 109, 634 S.E.2d 1 (Ct. App. 2006) voided a provision in the parties’ 1990
Supreme Court engages in scholarly debates on standard of appellate review of family court orders
Posted Wednesday, May 11th, 2011 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Equitable Distribution/Property Division, Jurisprudence, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Appellate Decisions, South Carolina Specific
The May 9, 2011 opinion in Lewis v. Lewis, 392 S.C. 381, 709 S.E.2d 650 (2011), finds the South Carolina Supreme Court engaging in a scholarly
“Shotgunning” motions to compel discovery
Posted Friday, May 6th, 2011 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Family Court Procedure, Litigation Strategy, Not South Carolina Specific, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys
While the rules of civil procedure don’t create a distinction, there are really two types of motions to compel discovery. The first type of motion
In 3-2 decision, Supreme Court takes narrow view of unwed father’s parental rights
Posted Thursday, May 5th, 2011 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Adoption/Termination of Parental Rights, Child Custody, Jurisprudence, Not South Carolina Specific, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, Of Interest to General Public, South Carolina Appellate Decisions
The creation of parental rights and responsibilities for unwed fathers are hardly reciprocal. The state, the mother, or the child’s guardian can come after an
After Webb v. Sowell is any post eighteenth birthday child support constitutional?
Posted Wednesday, May 4th, 2011 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Child Custody, Litigation Strategy, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Specific
In 2010, the South Carolina Supreme Court decision in Webb v. Sowell, 387 S.C. 328, 692 S.E.2d 543 (2010) found that South Carolina’s interpretation of
We appear to have an answer on what constitutes a narcotic
Posted Saturday, April 30th, 2011 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Divorce and Marriage, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Appellate Decisions, South Carolina Specific
A few months ago I blogged about the common misconception that South Carolina has a ground for divorce for drug abuse when it really has
Attorneys acting too clever in assisting clients to repudiate an agreement
Posted Saturday, April 30th, 2011 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Attorney-Client Relations, Litigation Strategy, Not South Carolina Specific, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys
Recently, and for only the second time in my career, an opposing party attempted to repudiate a family court agreement that he or she had
Thomas McDow’s annotated attorney’s oath
Posted Friday, April 29th, 2011 by Thomas McDow
Filed under Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, Rules of Professional (Lawyer) Conduct, South Carolina Specific
From guest blogger, Thomas F. McDow of the Law Office of Thomas F. McDow in Rock Hill, South Carolina Attorney’s Oath, Mandated by Rule 402(k), SCACR I do
