Court of Appeals of South Carolina· 2/8/1999
Dixon v. Dixon
Citations
- 512 S.E.2d 539
- 334 S.C. 222
- 1999 S.C. App. LEXIS 23
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- finding where the husband actively set out to destroy his business during the marital litigation, the proper valuation date for equitable division is the filing date
- finding proper valuation date for business was filing date where the husband actively set out to destroy the business during the marital litigation
- lowering a wifes award of 75% of the marital property, finding it unjustifiably punitive on the husband notwithstanding his fault in the dissolution of the marriage
- holding the family court should have considered value of family business at the commencement of the divorce action instead of zero value of the business at the time of the final hearing, where husband deliberately destroyed business to keep wife from obtaining any of its value
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Howell, Anderson, Stilwell
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
18 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Doe v. DoeCourt of Appeals of South Carolina· 2006-07-03· cited 120×
- Lewis v. LewisCourt of Appeals of South Carolina· 2012-11-14· cited 41×
- Bowman v. BowmanCourt of Appeals of South Carolina· 2004-01-20· cited 35×
- Arnal v. ArnalCourt of Appeals of South Carolina· 2005-02-07· cited 29×
- Brown v. BrownCourt of Appeals of South Carolina· 2008-05-28· cited 21×
- Fields v. FieldsCourt of Appeals of South Carolina· 2000-07-21· cited 20×
- Burch v. BurchSupreme Court of South Carolina· 2011-10-31· cited 20×
- Sanderson v. SandersonCourt of Appeals of South Carolina· 2010-12-22· cited 15×
- Sanders v. SandersCourt of Appeals of South Carolina· 2011-12-21· cited 14×
- Fuller v. FullerCourt of Appeals of South Carolina· 2006-09-11· cited 12×
- Gardner v. Gardner Ex Rel. GardnerSupreme Court of South Carolina· 2006-03-13· cited 10×
- Grumbos v. GrumbosCourt of Appeals of South Carolina· 2011-04-27· cited 8×
- Jenkins v. JenkinsCourt of Appeals of South Carolina· 2012-12-05· cited 4×
- Hatfield Ex Rel. Hyman Law Firm v. Van EppsCourt of Appeals of South Carolina· 2004-03-08· cited 3×
- Burgess v. BurgessCourt of Appeals of South Carolina· 2014-01-15· cited 3×
- Rogers v. RogersCourt of Appeals of South Carolina· 2020-10-07
- Khalil Abbas-Ghaleb v. Anna GhalebCourt of Appeals of South Carolina· 2024-04-03
- Khalil Abbas-Ghaleb v. Anna GhalebCourt of Appeals of South Carolina· 2024-10-21
Cites
17 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Berish v. BerishOhio Supreme Court· 1982-02-19· cited 459×
- Johnson v. JohnsonCourt of Appeals of South Carolina· 1988-08-29· cited 186×
- Stevenson v. StevensonSupreme Court of South Carolina· 1981-06-22· cited 116×
- Donahue v. DonahueSupreme Court of South Carolina· 1989-09-25· cited 100×
- Mallett v. MallettCourt of Appeals of South Carolina· 1996-05-28· cited 59×
- Sharp v. SharpCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland· 1984-04-09· cited 56×
- Smith v. SmithCourt of Appeals of South Carolina· 1987-12-14· cited 48×
- Doe v. DoeCourt of Appeals of South Carolina· 1996-10-28· cited 37×
- Matter of Marriage of DeVineTex. App. Ct., 7th Dist. (Amarillo)· 1994-02-24· cited 31×
- McDavid v. McDavidSupreme Court of South Carolina· 1999-01-18· cited 27×
- Noll v. NollCourt of Appeals of South Carolina· 1988-11-28· cited 26×
- Ellerbe v. EllerbeCourt of Appeals of South Carolina· 1996-07-15· cited 25×
- Cooksey v. CookseyCourt of Appeals of South Carolina· 1984-02-10· cited 23×
- Rampey v. RampeyCourt of Appeals of South Carolina· 1985-06-11· cited 19×
- Camp v. CampSupreme Court of South Carolina· 1977-08-03· cited 18×
- Rgm v. DemSupreme Court of South Carolina· 1991-10-28· cited 18×
- Herron v. JohnsonDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals· 1998-07-16· cited 7×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.