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
Andrew Michael Myers is one husband who definitely needed a prenup
Posted Saturday, January 22nd, 2011 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Alimony/Spousal Support, Attorney's Fees, Divorce and Marriage, Equitable Distribution/Property Division, Jurisprudence, Law and Culture, Not South Carolina Specific, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, Of Interest to General Public, South Carolina Appellate Decisions
In the history of South Carolina husbands who wish they had a prenup, I bet there are few with more justification for this feeling than
Posted Sunday, January 9th, 2011 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Attorney's Fees, Litigation Strategy, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Specific
Yesterday, I blogged on how mediators (and guardians) might collect fees for the time they spend as an attorney collecting the fees they earn as
Collecting fees as the mediator or guardian
Posted Saturday, January 8th, 2011 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Attorney's Fees, Litigation Strategy, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Specific
For attorneys who also act as mediators or guardians ad litem, many family court judges’ interpretation of Calhoun v. Calhoun, 331 S.C. 157, 164-65, 501
Lessons in imputed income from the Court of Appeals
Posted Wednesday, September 1st, 2010 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Alimony/Spousal Support, Attorney's Fees, Child Custody, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Appellate Decisions, South Carolina Specific
Have some sympathy for Family Court Judge Leslie K. Riddle, whose decision in the case of Marchant v. Marchant, 390 S.C. 1, 699 S.E.2d 708
Posted Thursday, August 5th, 2010 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Attorney's Fees, Child Support, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Appellate Decisions, South Carolina Specific
Yesterday’s Court of Appeals opinion in Bennett v. Rector, 389 S.C. 274, 697 S.E.2d 715 (Ct.App. 2010), provides further guidance on imputation of income in
Posted Thursday, June 17th, 2010 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Attorney's Fees, Child Custody, Child Support, Contempt/Enforcement of Orders, Jurisdiction, Litigation Strategy, Not South Carolina Specific, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys
In the first year of law school everyone takes Civil Procedure, where we learn about in rem jurisdiction, quasi in rem jurisdiction and in personam
Forgoing initial retainers in the expectation of payment later
Posted Tuesday, June 8th, 2010 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Attorney-Client Relations, Attorney's Fees, Not South Carolina Specific, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys
A few of the new attorneys in my suite asked for my views on forgoing initial retainers in family court cases in which one might
Letting good clients subsidize deadbeat clients
Posted Tuesday, June 8th, 2010 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Attorney-Client Relations, Attorney's Fees, Not South Carolina Specific, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, Rules of Professional (Lawyer) Conduct
I am amazed at how many family law attorneys accept a collections rate of 75%, or less, on their billing. Basically they are letting their
