Advance Sheets 01-2010! Ring in the New Year by reading today's Advance Sheets. They're quick and easy. Or just read my summary.
Just one item from the Supreme Court today: Dawkins v. Dawkins. Please read this one if you practice divorce law. It is especially addressed to the Bar. Well, the Bench too. This is an appeal from the Family Court, or rather, a reversal of the Court of Appeals decision reversing the Family Court and reinstating the Family Court decision. The Court reinforced the notion that an equitable distribution is within the discretion of the trial court and should be presumed appropriate. The Court also overruled Cooksey v. Cooksey, 280 S.C. 347 (Ct. App. 1984) regarding special equity in marital property transmuted from inherited property.
From the Court of Appeals:
State v. Evans. This is an appeal from three manslaughter convictions. At issue was whether the Defendant had been denied the right to a speedy trial while her case was pending for some twelve plus years. The Court of Appeals, limited by its standard of review, found the trial court had sufficient evidence to deny the Defendant's speedy trial motion and affirmed the convictions.* I am not sure of the broad impact of this opinion since it involved a case with some very unusual circumstances with Public Defenders getting elected Solicitor and Assistant Solicitors getting elected Solicitor in other Circuits. Very unusual circumstances.
* This opinion was written for the Court by Judge Short, for whom I served as a law clerk when he was on the Circuit Court.
DSS v. Johnson. This is an appeal of a child support judgment from the Family Court and subsequent contempt citation. The case originated in North Carolina and was certified in South Carolina after the Petitioner relocated here. Petitioner alleges that he was improperly notified of the registration of the North Carolina order in South Carolina though he admitted to knowledge of the North Carolina order. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Family Court.
McDaniel v. Kendrick is an appeal from the Circuit Court that Kendrick failed to establish adverse possession or a constructive trust. Specifically, that hostility was required for a claim of adverse possession and that fraud is required for a constructive trust. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Circuit Court.