|
|
|
Cases of Interest: South Carolina
© National Legal Research Group, Inc.
Agreements (full category)
-
SOUTH CAROLINA: Blejski v. Blejski, ___ S.C. ___, 480 S.E.2d 462 (Ct. App. 1997).
Neither the trial court's remarks from the bench nor alleged pressure by the wife's attorney amounted to duress so as to vitiate the parties' settlement agreement.
Read More About This CaseAlimony (full category)
-
SOUTH CAROLINA: Gilfillin v. Gilfillin, Op. No. 25267 (S.C. Sup. Ct. Mar. 26, 2001).
The divorce decree order required the husband to establish a $300,000 alimony trust to secure periodic alimony payments to the wife in the event he predeceased her.
Read More About This Case
Attorneys and Clients (full category)
-
SOUTH CAROLINA: Crowley v. Harvey & Battey, P.A., ___ S.C. ___, 488 S.E.2d 334 (Ct. App. 1997).
A divorce client's malpractice claim against her former lawyers, who allegedly negligently advised her in settling property division issues, was not barred by her conduct in accepting financial benefits under the settlement agreement or in suing to enforce it.
Read More About This CaseAttorneys (full category)
-
SOUTH CAROLINA: Calhoun v. Calhoun, ___ S.C. ___, 501 S.E.2d 735 (Ct. App. 1998).
A lawyer who represents himself or herself may not be awarded attorney's fees for the pro se representation.
Read More About This CaseAttorney's Fees (full category)
-
SOUTH CAROLINA: Burns v. Burns, ___ S.C. ___, 448 S.E.2d 571 (Ct. App. 1994).
The trial court did not have jurisdiction to award the wife attorney's fees incurred when she intervened in the husband's bankruptcy proceeding to protect her property rights under the divorce decree.
Read More About This CaseBankruptcy (full category)
-
SOUTH CAROLINA: Burns v. Burns, ___ S.C. ___, 448 S.E.2d 571 (Ct. App. 1994).
The trial court did not have jurisdiction to award the wife attorney's fees incurred when she intervened in the husband's bankruptcy proceeding to protect her property rights under the divorce decree.
Read More About This CaseClassification of Assets (full category)
-
SOUTH CAROLINA: Marsh v. Marsh, ___ S.C. ___, 437 S.E.2d 34 (1993).
The proceeds of a personal injury settlement acquired during the marriage are entirely marital property.
Read More About This CaseSOUTH CAROLINA: Mallett v. Mallett, ___ S.C. ___, 473 S.E.2d 804 (Ct. App. 1996).
Termination benefits that the husband would receive following termination of his contract with State Farm were not marital property, because the payments were intended to replace renewal commissions that he would earn in the future.
Read More About This CaseDissipation of Assets (full category)
-
SOUTH CAROLINA: McDavid v. McDavid, ___ S.C. ___, 511 S.E.2d 365 (1999).
The husband should not have been charged with money that he spent on his failing business during the marriage, given the lack of any evidence of willful misconduct, bad faith, or intentional dissolution of marital assets.
Read More About This CaseSOUTH CAROLINA: Dixon v. Dixon, ___ S.C. ___, 512 S.E.2d 539 (Ct. App. 1999).
The value of the husband's business should have been included in the marital estate and assessed entirely against his share of the marital estate even though the business was liquidated during the proceedings, because he set out to destroy the company for the sole purpose of depriving the wife of any interest in it.
Read More About This CaseDivision of Property (full category)
-
SOUTH CAROLINA: Mallett v. Mallett, ___ S.C. ___, 473 S.E.2d 804 (Ct. App. 1996).
Termination benefits that the husband would receive following termination of his contract with State Farm were not marital property, because the payments were intended to replace renewal commissions that he would earn in the future.
Read More About This CaseFactors in Award (full category)
-
SOUTH CAROLINA: Pool v. Pool, ___ S.C. ___, 467 S.E.2d 753 (Ct. App. 1996).
Awarding the husband 60% of the marital assets was not an abuse of discretion, where he made the greater direct contributions and the parties' indirect contributions were equal.
Read More About This CaseMarital Home (full category)
-
SOUTH CAROLINA: Hough v. Hough, ___ S.C. ___, 440 S.E.2d 387 (Ct. App. 1993).
Evidence supported trial court's finding that marital home, although titled in name of husband's mother, was marital property.
Read More About This CaseSOUTH CAROLINA: Murray v. Murray, ___ S.C. ___, 439 S.E.2d 312 (Ct. App. 1993).
Home which husband paid for before the marriage was not transmuted to marital property merely because the parties lived there for the duration of their 17-year marriage.
Read More About This CaseMilitary Benefits (full category)
-
SOUTH CAROLINA: Tirado v. Tirado, ___ S.C. ___, 530 S.E.2d 128 (Ct. App. 2000).
Is the wife entitled to reimbursement from the husband for the reduction in her monthly Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) checks due to his postdivorce waiver of retirement pay in favor of increased disability benefits?
Read More About This CaseSOUTH CAROLINA: Fisher v. Fisher, ___ S.C. ___, 462 S.E.2d 303 (Ct. App. 1995).
The husband's voluntary separation incentive benefits were marital property in which the wife was entitled to share, even though their separation agreement granted her a share of his military "retirement" benefits.
Read More About This CasePersonal Injury Awards (full category)
-
SOUTH CAROLINA: Blejski v. Blejski, ___ S.C. ___, 480 S.E.2d 462 (Ct. App. 1997).
Neither the trial court's remarks from the bench nor alleged pressure by the wife's attorney amounted to duress so as to vitiate the parties' settlement agreement.
Read More About This CaseSOUTH CAROLINA: Marsh v. Marsh, ___ S.C. ___, 437 S.E.2d 34 (1993).
The proceeds of a personal injury settlement acquired during the marriage are entirely marital property.
Read More About This CasePremarital Property (full category)
-
SOUTH CAROLINA: Murray v. Murray, ___ S.C. ___, 439 S.E.2d 312 (Ct. App. 1993).
Home which husband paid for before the marriage was not transmuted to marital property merely because the parties lived there for the duration of their 17-year marriage.
Read More About This CaseProfessional Practices (full category)
-
SOUTH CAROLINA: McElveen v. McElveen, ___ S.C. ___, 506 S.E.2d 1 (Ct. App. 1998).
The most probative evidence of the husband's interest in his medical practice was the governing stock purchase agreement.
Read More About This CaseTaxes (full category)
-
SOUTH CAROLINA: Hudson v. Hudson, ___ S.C. ___, 530 S.E.2d 400 (Ct. App. 2000).
Is dependent tax exemption an asset subject to equitable distribution?
Read More About This CaseThird Parties (full category)
-
SOUTH CAROLINA: Hough v. Hough, ___ S.C. ___, 440 S.E.2d 387 (Ct. App. 1993).
Evidence supported trial court's finding that marital home, although titled in name of husband's mother, was marital property.
Read More About This CaseTransmutation of Property (full category)
-
SOUTH CAROLINA: Murray v. Murray, ___ S.C. ___, 439 S.E.2d 312 (Ct. App. 1993).
Home which husband paid for before the marriage was not transmuted to marital property merely because the parties lived there for the duration of their 17-year marriage.
Read More About This CaseValuation of Property (full category)
-
SOUTH CAROLINA: Mallett v. Mallett, ___ S.C. ___, 473 S.E.2d 804 (Ct. App. 1996).
Termination benefits that the husband would receive following termination of his contract with State Farm were not marital property, because the payments were intended to replace renewal commissions that he would earn in the future.
Read More About This CaseGo to: Cases of Interest by Category
Go to: Previous Page
| Store Categories State Guidebooks Find Professionals Support Calculations |
State Guidebooks with Forms:
| The Research Center: (Divorce Cases of Interest) | Research Home | ||||
Find Case Law, Case Analysis, and Divorce Information...
| |||||
Copyright© 1996-2009. All rights reserved by Divorce Source, Inc.
Comments & Suggestions? or Recommend This Page to a Friend!