Perhaps he has a 2,000 mile long penis?[1]
Posted Friday, November 30th, 2012 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Divorce and Marriage, Law and Culture, Not South Carolina Specific, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, Of Interest to General Public
A question I am frequently and increasingly being asked by my colleagues is whether modern uses of technology to engage in sexual banter can constitute
Posted Tuesday, November 27th, 2012 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Family Court Procedure, Litigation Strategy, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Specific
Before 2004, when SCRCP 3(a), was revised, it was strategically advantageous to serve a family court complaint as soon as it was filed. This was
Supreme Court holds that family court temporary order is never automatically stayed by appeal
Posted Wednesday, November 21st, 2012 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Contempt/Enforcement of Orders, Family Court Procedure, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Appellate Decisions, South Carolina Specific
In the November 21, 2012 opinion of Terry v. Terry, 400 S.C. 453, 734 S.E.2d 646 (2012) the South Carolina Supreme Court clarifies the effect of filing
Posted Wednesday, November 21st, 2012 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 November 21, 2012 advance sheet, the South Carolina Supreme Court promulgated new rules regarding family court temporary hearings (pages 5-6) and docketing of
South Carolina Supreme Court September 2012 case of the month fizzles into unpublished dud
Posted Wednesday, November 21st, 2012 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Attorney's Fees, Contempt/Enforcement of Orders, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Appellate Decisions, South Carolina Specific
Ex parte: Belinda Davis-Branch. In re: Larry Solomon v. Betty Jean Solomon was the South Carolina Supreme Court’s September 2012 “Case of the Month.” Had
Posted Wednesday, November 14th, 2012 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Attorney's Fees, Child Custody, Child Support, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Appellate Decisions, South Carolina Specific
The November 14, 2012 Court of Appeals opinion in Lewis v. Lewis, 400 S.C. 354, 734 S.E.2d 322 (Ct. App. 2012), provides some guidance on imputing income
Does South Carolina Rule of Civil Procedure 6(d) violate due process?
Posted Tuesday, November 13th, 2012 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Family Court Procedure, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Specific
I recently defended a motion in which the timing of the submitted affidavits has me considering whether South Carolina Rule of Civil Procedure 6(d) violates due
What makes a good request for admission?
Posted Tuesday, November 13th, 2012 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
Other than requests for admissions on the authenticity of documents–which can be issued in unlimited numbers--South Carolina Rule of Civil Procedure 36(c) limits a party
“Irresponsible procreation” as a defense of DOMA
Posted Sunday, October 21st, 2012 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Divorce and Marriage, Jurisprudence, Not South Carolina Specific, Of Interest to General Public
On October 18, 2012, in 2-1 decision in the case of Windsor v. United States, 699 F. 3d 169 (2nd. Cir. 2012), the United States Court
Should there be a cause of action for paternity fraud?
Posted Friday, October 19th, 2012 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Jurisprudence, Law and Culture, Not South Carolina Specific, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, Of Interest to General Public, Paternity
A colleague of mine, T. Ryan Phillips, emailed me an October 1, 2012 Tennessee Supreme Court opinion in the case of Hodge v. Craig, 382 S.W.3d
