Court of Appeals’ opinion applies Latimer factors to initial custody determination
Posted Wednesday, August 24th, 2011 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Child Custody, Family Court Procedure, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Appellate Decisions, South Carolina Specific
Today’s South Carolina Court of Appeals opinion in McComb v. Conard, 394 S.C. 416, 715 S.E.2d 662 (Ct. App. 2011), approved the family court’s use of
Stipulating to family court discovery
Posted Friday, August 5th, 2011 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Family Court Procedure, Litigation Strategy, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Specific
Unlike circuit court, there in no automatic discovery in South Carolina’s family court. See Rule 25, SCRFC. Most of the time, discovery is ordered at the
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
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
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
Beaten by implicit credibility determinations
Posted Friday, May 27th, 2011 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Family Court Procedure, Jurisprudence, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Appellate Decisions, South Carolina Specific
My client, for completely explicable reasons, but much to my disappointment, has decided not to seek rehearing and eventual certiorari of the unpublished May 18,
When “five days” is seven days (and can be ten days)
Posted Thursday, May 19th, 2011 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Family Court Procedure, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Specific
South Carolina Family Court Rule 21(a) allows Motions for Temporary Relief to “be served not later than five days before the time specified for the
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
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
“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
