Court of Appeals addresses parties’ efforts in its alimony and equitable distribution determination
Posted Thursday, September 30th, 2021 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Alimony/Spousal Support, Equitable Distribution/Property Division, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Appellate Decisions, South Carolina Specific
The August 18, 2021, Court of Appeals opinion in Jordan v. Postell, 434 S.C. 510, 864 S.E.2d 558 (Ct. App. 2021), addresses common issues of
South Carolina’s unjust approach to unvested stock options
Posted Tuesday, July 27th, 2021 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Equitable Distribution/Property Division, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Appellate Decisions, South Carolina Specific
A few days ago a colleague called me to discuss an issue he was mediating, specifically how to apportion unvested stock options. This made me
Subsequently discovered property provisions in equitable distribution agreements
Posted Thursday, June 3rd, 2021 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Equitable Distribution/Property Division, Litigation Strategy, Miscellaneous, Not South Carolina Specific, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys
A provision I occasionally see in equitable distribution agreements addresses subsequently discovered property. These provisions state that if one spouse discovers the other spouse failed
Posted Wednesday, December 9th, 2020 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Alimony/Spousal Support, Child Custody, Equitable Distribution/Property Division, South Carolina Appellate Decisions
The December 9, 2020, Court of Appeals opinion in Jackson v. Jackson, 432 S.C. 415, 853 S.E.2d 344 (Ct.App. 2020), demonstrates the problems that can
Posted Thursday, October 22nd, 2020 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Alimony/Spousal Support, Attorney's Fees, Child Support, Equitable Distribution/Property Division, Family Court Procedure, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Appellate Decisions, South Carolina Specific
The October 21, 2020 South Carolina Court of Appeals opinion in Rogers v. Rogers, 432 S.C. 168, 851 S.E.2d 447 (Ct.App. 2020), partially answers the
Posted Tuesday, October 13th, 2020 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Equitable Distribution/Property Division, Litigation Strategy, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Specific
With the October 15th tax deadline approaching, I am receiving emails from numerous clients regarding disputes with their estranged spouse over how to file last
Posted Friday, May 15th, 2020 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Equitable Distribution/Property Division, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Appellate Decisions, South Carolina Specific
In a May 13, 2020 opinion in Clark v. Clark, 430 S.C. 167, 843 S.E.2d 498 (2020), a closely divided South Carolina Supreme Court approves
Posted Thursday, May 14th, 2020 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Equitable Distribution/Property Division, Family Court Procedure, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Appellate Decisions, South Carolina Specific
The May 13, 2020, Supreme Court opinion in Landry v. Landry, 430 S.C. 153, 843 S.E.2d 491 (2020), addresses the proper procedure to correct a
Posted Wednesday, May 6th, 2020 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Equitable Distribution/Property Division, Jurisprudence, Law and Culture, Not South Carolina Specific, Of Interest to General Public
Local family law attorney Tosha Jean Kotz has an excellent article, “Dogs & Divorce,” in the most recent SC Lawyer magazine. The article briefly discusses
Marital property as lump sum alimony
Posted Monday, December 2nd, 2019 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Alimony/Spousal Support, Equitable Distribution/Property Division, Litigation Strategy, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Specific
There are occasionally cases in which a spouse who would typically pay significant permanent periodic alimony as part of a marital dissolution has destroyed his
