Posted Monday, January 7th, 2019 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Child Custody, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Appellate Decisions, South Carolina Specific
The January 4, 2019 Court of Appeals opinion in Brown v. Key, 425 S.C. 490, 823 S.E.2d 212 (2019), represents the first published opinion addressing
Don’t let your kids become pinball wizards
Posted Tuesday, December 18th, 2018 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Child Custody, Legislation, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Specific
I have no desire to mine the legislative history to determine when and why some South Carolina legislator decided he needed to save our state’s
Court of Appeals addresses valuation of a closely held business
Posted Wednesday, November 28th, 2018 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
The November 28, 2018 Court of Appeals opinion in Clark v. Clark, 423 S.C. 596, 815 S.E.2d 772 (Ct. App. 2018), is one more data
There is no formula to predict South Carolina alimony obligations
Posted Wednesday, November 28th, 2018 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Alimony/Spousal Support, Litigation Strategy, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Specific
There’s a chart circulating amongst South Carolina family law attorneys that lists most of the published alimony opinions and has columns for the amount of
Posted Saturday, November 10th, 2018 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Attorney-Client Relations, Not South Carolina Specific, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys
Earlier this week I received what may be one of the bigger complements of my career. A fellow member of the local family court bar
The pessimistic defendant’s attorney
Posted Tuesday, November 6th, 2018 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Attorney-Client Relations, Not South Carolina Specific, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants
I suspect I lose a lot of business by projecting a pessimistic outlook when first meeting with Defendants in family law cases. While many litigants
Shouldn’t a party’s assets be a factor in “ability to pay” family court attorney’s fees?
Posted Thursday, October 25th, 2018 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Attorney's Fees, Litigation Strategy, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Specific
E.D.M. v. T.A.M., 307 S.C. 471, 476-77, 415 S.E.2d 812, 816 (1992) is the seminal South Carolina case in deciding whether to award a prevailing
Bojilov highlights importance of a good record and accurate financial declarations
Posted Tuesday, October 16th, 2018 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Alimony/Spousal Support, Attorney's Fees, Child Custody, Equitable Distribution/Property Division, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Appellate Decisions, South Carolina Specific
The September 19, 2018 Court of Appeals opinion in Bojilov v. Bojilov, 425 S.C. 161, 819 S.E.2d 791 (Ct. App. 2018), doesn’t establish any novel
The unfairness of the family court asking litigants if they think their agreement is “fair”
Posted Monday, October 1st, 2018 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Jurisprudence, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to General Public, South Carolina Specific
In the South Carolina family court, a standard part of the practice of questioning parties about their agreements before approving said agreements is whether the
Hard to win the appeal when you don’t show up for trial
Posted Sunday, September 30th, 2018 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
N.B. On January 9, 2019, the Court of Appeals issued a slightly revised opinion in this case. The September 19, 2018 Court of Appeals opinion
