South Carolina finally does grandparent visitation rights right
Posted Wednesday, June 11th, 2014 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Legislation, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Specific, Visitation
On June 9, 2014 Governor Nikki Haley signed into law House bill 4348 amending S.C. Code § 63-3-530 (A)(33), commonly known as the grandparent visitation
Court of Appeals rules prevailing party shouldn’t have to pay the other side’s attorney’s fees
Posted Monday, June 9th, 2014 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Attorney's Fees, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Appellate Decisions, South Carolina Specific
The June 4, 2014 Court of Appeals opinion in Brown v. Brown, 408 S.C. 582, 758 S.E.2d 922 (Ct. App. 2014), reversed a $5,000 attorney fee award the
Court of Appeals slightly modifies prior published opinion of Teeter v. Teeter
Posted Wednesday, May 21st, 2014 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Equitable Distribution/Property Division, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Appellate Decisions, South Carolina Specific
On May 21, 2014 the Court of Appeals slightly modified its prior published opinion in the case of Teeter v. Teeter, 408 S.C. 485, 759 S.E.2d 144
Court of Appeals finds adultery by both spouses and changes ground for divorce
Posted Thursday, May 15th, 2014 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Divorce and Marriage, Of Interest to Family Court Litigants, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Appellate Decisions, South Carolina Specific
N.B., on August 1, 2014 the Court of Appeals refiled its opinion and simply affirmed the family court’s no-fault ground for divorce: Court of Appeals reconsiders
Adult protective services opinion has implications for abuse and neglect cases
Posted Friday, May 9th, 2014 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Department of Social Services/Child Abuse and Neglect, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Appellate Decisions, South Carolina Specific
The April 30, 2014 South Carolina Supreme Court opinion in the case of In the Interest of Jane Doe, 407 S.C. 623, 757 S.E.2d 711 (2014), provides
Why file for separate maintenance when one doesn’t have grounds for divorce?
Posted Thursday, April 24th, 2014 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Divorce and Marriage, Litigation Strategy, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Specific
Separate maintenance is the action one files with the family court when one is no longer living with one’s spouse but one doesn’t yet have
Posted Friday, April 18th, 2014 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 April 16, 2014 Court of Appeals opinion in Hudson v. Hudson, 408 S.C. 76, 757 S.E.2d 727 (Ct. App. 2014), reversed the family court’s determination that
Court of Appeals affirms custody determination despite claim of improper guardian investigation
Posted Friday, April 4th, 2014 by Gregory Forman
Filed under 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 April 2, 2014 Court of Appeals opinion in Simcox-Adams v. Adams, 408 S.C. 252, 758 S.E.2d 206, (Ct. App. 2014), affirmed the family court’s award of
Should one explain one’s request to admit responses?
Posted Friday, April 4th, 2014 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Litigation Strategy, Not South Carolina Specific, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys
I had a lively debate a few weeks ago with colleagues I respect over whether one should explain request to admit responses that look bad
Common Rule 11 violations in discovery requests and objections
Posted Thursday, April 3rd, 2014 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Family Court Procedure, Of Interest to Family Law Attorneys, South Carolina Specific
I’m not sure my fellow members of the bar are aware they are doing it, but I see a whole lot of Rule 11 violations
