No more unilateral remote mediations
Posted Friday, December 6th, 2024 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Family Court Procedure, Mediation/Alternative Dispute Resolution, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Specific
A December 6, 2024 Supreme Court order rescinds a March 19, 2021 Supreme Court order that authorized remote mediations during the COVID-19 pandemic. That 2021
Posted Tuesday, October 1st, 2024 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Family Court Procedure, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Specific
On September 25, 2024, the South Carolina Supreme Court issued a revised order on “Duties of Family Court Chief Judges for Administrative Purposes.” For family
You don’t have to suffer through multiple standby docketings
Posted Thursday, June 1st, 2023 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Family Court Procedure, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Specific
I’m not a big fan of being on standby dockets. Not only is there the necessity of having to prepare for a trial that may
The family court’s failure to protect guardians ad litem does not appear to be improving
Posted Tuesday, January 31st, 2023 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Child Custody, Family Court Procedure, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Specific
Over a decade ago I stopped doing guardian ad Litem work and blogged about why. I was tired of ad hominem attacks from unhappy litigants—and
Whose signatures are needed for family court consent orders?
Posted Thursday, November 3rd, 2022 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Family Court Procedure, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Specific
In the pre-COVID days, one could typically get temporary orders approved with just the attorneys’ signatures and could almost always get procedural orders approved with
Pro se appellant creates interesting law on military retirement and jurisdictional challenges
Posted Thursday, May 26th, 2022 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 25, 2022, Court of Appeals opinion in the case of Williams v. Williams, 436 S.C. 550, 873 S.E.2d 785 (Ct.App. 2022), demonstrates the
The vital distinction between dismissal with prejudice and dismissal without prejudice
Posted Saturday, April 2nd, 2022 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Family Court Procedure, Litigation Strategy, Not South Carolina Specific, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys
In family court there is a vital distinction between dismissal with prejudice and dismissal without prejudice. “A dismissal of a case without prejudice means that
Why not have multiple final orders?
Posted Thursday, March 31st, 2022 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Family Court Procedure, Not South Carolina Specific, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys
When a case concludes, family law attorneys typically draft one final order addressing all issues in the case. It is certainly the easiest method of
Posted Thursday, March 10th, 2022 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Alimony/Spousal 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 March 9, 2022, Court of Appeals opinion in Bostick v. Bostick, 436 S.C. 43, 872 S.E.2d 859 (Ct.App. 2022), reversed the family court’s determination
Surprising few, Supreme Court holds that child issues cannot be arbitrated
Posted Friday, September 10th, 2021 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Family Court Procedure, Mediation/Alternative Dispute Resolution, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Appellate Decisions, South Carolina Specific
In Fall 2019, the South Carolina Court of Appeals issued two separate opinions holding that child issues could not be arbitrated: Kosciusko v. Parham, 428
