Posted Wednesday, June 6th, 2012 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Attorney's Fees, Child Custody, Child Support, Equitable Distribution/Property Division, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Appellate Decisions, South Carolina Specific, Visitation
Last week, in Tillman v. Oakes, 398 S.C. 245, 728 S.E.2d 45 (Ct. App. 2012), the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded a family court custody
Convoluted attorney’s fees case results in Supreme Court reinstating the family court award
Posted Wednesday, February 1st, 2012 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Attorney's Fees, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Appellate Decisions, South Carolina Specific
The February 1, 2012 Supreme Court decision Chisholm v. Chisholm, 396 S.C. 507, 722 S.E.2d 222 (2012), caps decade-long litigation into the amount of attorneys fees Husband is
Lewin affirms family court fee award in face of Father’s multiple challenges
Posted Thursday, December 22nd, 2011 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Attorney's Fees, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Appellate Decisions, South Carolina Specific
In the December 14, 2011 opinion in Lewin v. Lewin, 396 S.C. 349, 721 S.E.2d 1 (Ct. App. 2011), (in which I represented the losing appellant, though I
One hundred things I don’t know about South Carolina family law
Posted Monday, November 14th, 2011 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Alimony/Spousal Support, Attorney's Fees, Child Custody, Child Support, Contempt/Enforcement of Orders, Department of Social Services/Child Abuse and Neglect, Divorce and Marriage, Equitable Distribution/Property Division, Family Court Procedure, Jurisprudence, Mediation/Alternative Dispute Resolution, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, Of Interest to General Public, Paternity, South Carolina Specific
This blog is inspired by myriad important family law issues that current South Carolina case law and statute don’t adequately answer. None of these questions
Posted Tuesday, November 1st, 2011 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Attorney's Fees, Child Support, Equitable Distribution/Property Division, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Appellate Decisions, South Carolina Specific
In the October 31, 2011 opinion in Burch v. Burch, 395 S.C. 318, 717 S.E.2d 757 (2011), the South Carolina Supreme Court finally ratifies the passive
More mixed signals from South Carolina Supreme Court on handling flat fees
Posted Tuesday, September 13th, 2011 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Attorney's Fees, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, Rules of Professional (Lawyer) Conduct, South Carolina Appellate Decisions, South Carolina Specific
The September 12, 2011 public reprimand issued by the South Carolina Supreme Court in In the Matter of Michael James Sarratt, 394 S.C. 209, 715
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
Disloyal collegiality in the prosecution and non prosecution of motions to compel
Posted Wednesday, June 29th, 2011 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Attorney's Fees, Family Court Procedure, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Specific
South Carolina attorneys are expected to be collegial. Part of that collegiality is a reluctance to file motions to compel discovery responses and a frequent
Indignance over representing indigent costs South Carolina attorney
Posted Tuesday, June 21st, 2011 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Attorney's Fees, Jurisprudence, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Specific
The June 21, 2011 South Carolina Supreme Court opinion in Ex Parte Brown 393 S.C. 214, 711 S.E.2d 899 (2011), finally establishes “that the Takings Clause of
Revealing or shielding a family court attorney’s itemized statement of time spent
Posted Saturday, March 19th, 2011 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Attorney's Fees, Litigation Strategy, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Specific
An attorney’s itemized statement of time spent on a case can be a valuable piece of information for an opposing party and that party’s attorney.
