Legal Opinion
Meyer v. Paschal
Supreme Court of South Carolina
Decided March 23, 1998No. 24776PublishedCited by 19 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
BURNETT, Justice:
The trial court held S.C. Code Ann. § 15-3-30 (1976) did not apply to toll the statute of limitations for Thelma Meyer’s (Meyer) fraudulent conveyance cause of action. Meyer appeals. We affirm.
FACTS
Meyer and John Paschal (Paschal) were married for twenty-three years. Pursuant to a separation agreement, Paschal, by a deed dated November 25, 1981, and recorded January 27, 1982, purchased a house and lot in Greenville County, South Carolina (SC Property), for the use and benefit of Meyer. The SC Property was titled in Paschal’s name.
Paschal transferred the SC Property to Mary…
2Cases cited23 opinions
- International Shoe Co. v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
- Pennoyer v. NeffSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
- Moran v. the Commissioners of Miami CountySupreme Court of the United States · 1863
- Arrowood v. McMinn CountyTennessee Supreme Court · 1938
- Coombs v. DarlingSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1933
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by19 opinions
- Cockrell v. Hillerich & Bradsby Co.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 2005
- Marshall Garber v. Heriberto Menendez, M.D.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2018
- Commercial Credit Loans, Inc. v. RiddleCourt of Appeals of South Carolina · 1999
- Hunt v. Enzo Biochem, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 2006
- Moosally v. WW Norton & Co., Inc.Court of Appeals of South Carolina · 2004
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.