Alimony/Spousal Support

At least he got the laptop back

Posted Wednesday, August 3rd, 2011 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Alimony/Spousal Support, Attorney's Fees, Equitable Distribution/Property Division, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Appellate Decisions, South Carolina Specific

N.B., the Court of Appeals opinion in Pittman v. Pittman was subsequently refiled with a different analysis on the transmutation issue. See Rearranging the deck chairs Thomas

Court of Appeals holds ex-wife’s alimony claim possibly not time barred due to ex-husband’s violence and threats

Posted Wednesday, July 20th, 2011 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Alimony/Spousal Support, Family Court Procedure, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Appellate Decisions, South Carolina Specific

In the July 20, 2011 decision in Ross v. Ross, 394 S.C. 261, 715 S.E.2d 359 (Ct. App. 2011), the Court of Appeals remanded the issue

Ending the alimony guessing game

Posted Monday, July 4th, 2011 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Alimony/Spousal Support, Jurisprudence, Not South Carolina Specific, Of Interest to General Public

An editorial in today’s New York Times, Ending the alimony guessing game, by Alexandra Harwin, a 2011 Yale Law School graduate, highlights New York State’s

Court of Appeals holds Rule 59(e) motion does not authorize family court to modify final order, sua sponte, in manner not requested by the moving party

Posted Wednesday, June 29th, 2011 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Alimony/Spousal Support, Family Court Procedure, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Appellate Decisions, South Carolina Specific

The June 29, 2011 Court of Appeals opinion in Wannamaker v. Wannamaker, 395 S.C. 592, 719 S.E.2d 261 (Ct. App. 2011) (refiled August 11, 2011 with a

United States Supreme Court finds that indigent defendant is not entitled to appointed counsel for child support civil contempt proceeding but still vacates South Carolina Supreme Court judgment of civil contempt

Posted Monday, June 20th, 2011 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Alimony/Spousal Support, Child Support, Contempt/Enforcement of Orders, Jurisprudence, Not South Carolina Specific, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, United States Supreme Court Decisions

The June 20, 2011 United States Supreme Court opinion in Turner v. Rogers, 131 S.Ct. 2507 (2011), will radically alter the way the South Carolina Family Court

Supreme Court drops burden to modify support agreements; holds requirement to maintain health insurance is a form of modifiable alimony despite parties’ waiver of alimony

Posted Tuesday, May 31st, 2011 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Alimony/Spousal Support, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Appellate Decisions, South Carolina Specific

The May 31, 2011 South Carolina Supreme Court opinion in Miles v. Miles, 393 S.C. 111, 711 S.E.2d 880 (2011),  remedies what many South Carolina family

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

Court of Appeals decision provides rare guidance on standards for appeal of family court temporary orders

Posted Friday, April 29th, 2011 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Alimony/Spousal Support, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Appellate Decisions, South Carolina Specific

The April 27, 2011 Court of Appeals decision in Grumbos v. Grumbos, 393 S.C. 33, 710 S.E.2d 76 (Ct.App. 2011), treads much familiar ground.  To wit:

South Carolina appellate courts continue to interpret cohabitation to terminate alimony narrowly in favor of supported spouses; failing to challenge fee affidavit fatal to claim that fee award of $126,797.30 was excessive

Posted Wednesday, March 16th, 2011 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Alimony/Spousal Support, Attorney's Fees, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Appellate Decisions, South Carolina Specific

The March 16, 2011 Court of Appeals opinion in Biggins v. Burdette, 392 S.C. 241, 708 S.E.2d 237 (Ct.App. 2011), continues the trend of the South Carolina

Maybe we’re taking the deference to the family court judge’s credibility determinations too far?

Posted Friday, February 25th, 2011 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Alimony/Spousal Support, Attorney's Fees, Equitable Distribution/Property Division, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Appellate Decisions, South Carolina Specific

The February 23, 2011 Court of Appeals opinion in Reiss v. Reiss, 392 S.C. 198, 708 S.E.2d 799 (Ct.App 2011) makes me question whether the appellate