Tiffault v. Tiffault
Supreme Court of South Carolina
1Opinion of the Court
Gregory, Chief Justice:
This domestic action is before us on a writ of certiorari to review the memorandum decision of the Court of Appeals holding vested military retirement benefits are subject to equitable division. In reaching its decision, the Court of Appeals relied on Martin v. Martin, 296 S.C. 436, 373 S.E. (2d) 706 (Ct. App. 1988). We affirm.
In Bugg v. Bugg, 277 S.C. 270, 286 S.E. (2d) 135 (1982), and Carter v. Carter, 277 S.C. 277, 286 S.E. (2d) 139 (1982), this Court recognized that military retirement benefits were not marital property as mandated by the United States Supreme Court…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- McCarty v. McCartySupreme Court of the United States · 1981
- In Re Marriage of GalloSupreme Court of Colorado · 1988
- Brown v. BrownSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1983
- Bugg v. BuggSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1982
- Carter v. CarterSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1982
3Cited by10 opinions
- Wooten v. WootenSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2005
- Wilburn v. WilburnSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2012
- Brabham v. Brabham (In Re Brabham)United States Bankruptcy Court, D. South Carolina · 1995
- Ball v. BallSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1994
- Coon v. CoonSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2005
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.