The family court can require a spouse to purchase or maintain life insurance to secure an alimony obligation if the court finds “special circumstances.” S.C. Code Ann. § 20-3-130(D) lists the considerations the family court may use in making this determination:
In making an award of alimony or separate maintenance and support, the court may make provision for security for the payment of the support including, but not limited to, requiring the posting of money, property, and bonds and may require a spouse, with due consideration of the cost of premiums, insurance plans carried by the parties during marriage, insurability of the payor spouse, the probable economic condition of the supported spouse upon the death of the payor spouse, and any other factors the court may deem relevant, to carry and maintain life insurance so as to assure support of a spouse beyond the death of the payor spouse.
Smith v. Smith, 386 S.C. 251, 687 S.E.2d 720 (Ct.App. 2009) further clarifies what is required before the court can require such life insurance:
The family court may order the payor spouse to obtain life insurance as security for an alimony or child support obligation if the supported spouse can demonstrate the existence of special circumstances with reference to her need for the security and the payor spouse’s ability to provide it. In considering whether the supported spouse has demonstrated a need for such security, the family court should consider the supported spouse’s age, health, income earning ability, and accumulated assets. If a need for security is found, the family court should then consider the payor spouse’s ability to secure the award with life insurance by considering “the payor spouse’s age, health, income earning ability, accumulated assets, insurability, cost of premiums, and insurance plans carried by the parties during the marriage.
Id., 386 S.C. at 264 (citations omitted).
However, one is not required to show a “compelling reason” before life insurance may be ordered to secure an alimony award. The lower burden of proving a “special circumstance” is all that is required. Wooten v. Wooten, 364 S.C. 532, 615 S.E.2d 98, 108 (2005).
If you ghost your family law attorney don’t be surprised if good attorneys won’t work for you
While my brusque demeanor may hide it, I am aware that family law is a service industry and I work for the clients
In custody actions, don’t look to the guardian (or DSS) to carry your water
I see a lot of custody cases in which one or both parties expect the guardian to do the work and present the
2024: Another year with few published family court appeals
2024 continues the trend in which most calendar years have fewer than ten published family law appeals. For the third year in a
