Legal Opinion

Tiffault v. Tiffault

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Decided February 4, 1991No. 23337PublishedCited by 10 opinions

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

  1. McCarty v. McCartySupreme Court of the United States · 1981
  2. In Re Marriage of GalloSupreme Court of Colorado · 1988
  3. Brown v. BrownSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1983
  4. Bugg v. BuggSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1982
  5. Carter v. CarterSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1982

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Wooten v. WootenSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2005
  2. Wilburn v. WilburnSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2012
  3. Brabham v. Brabham (In Re Brabham)United States Bankruptcy Court, D. South Carolina · 1995
  4. Ball v. BallSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1994
  5. Coon v. CoonSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2005

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API