In Johnson v. Johnson (2026-UP-259), an unpublished June 3, 2026 decision, the South Carolina Court of Appeals addressed a variety of common family law issues, including retroactive support, alimony, equitable distribution, attorney's fees, and the limits of the family court's jurisdiction.

Although the opinion has no precedential value under Rule 268(d)(2), SCACR, it offers several practical lessons for family law practitioners.

Retroactive Child Support and Alimony Upheld

One of the most significant holdings involved the family court's award of retroactive child support and alimony. The Court of Appeals affirmed the award after finding that Husband had concealed new employment and failed to disclose earning potential that was similar to his prior income. Because the temporary order reduced support obligations based on incomplete information, the family court properly corrected that error in the final order.

The decision reinforces the principle that family courts retain authority to revisit and correct mistakes made in temporary orders when the evidence at trial reveals a different financial reality.

Permanent Periodic Alimony Remains the Preferred Form

The Court also affirmed an award of $1,000 per month in permanent periodic alimony. Husband argued that a lump-sum award would have been more appropriate, but the court reiterated South Carolina's longstanding preference for periodic alimony absent "special circumstances."

The opinion reviews several examples of circumstances that may justify lump-sum alimony, such as uncertainty regarding future income or a demonstrated unwillingness to make regular payments. Because none of those circumstances existed here, periodic alimony remained the proper remedy.

Family Court Cannot Apportion Non-Marital Property

Perhaps the most important procedural holding involved a $2,100 reimbursement ordered in favor of the parties' adult daughter. The Court reversed that portion of the order, holding that the family court lacked authority to require reimbursement because the funds were not part of the marital estate and the daughter was not a party to the action.

The ruling serves as a reminder that family courts may only divide marital property and generally lack jurisdiction over claims involving nonparties.

Takeaway

While unpublished, Johnson illustrates several recurring themes in South Carolina family law: the importance of complete financial disclosure, the continued preference for permanent periodic alimony, and the jurisdictional limits on a family court's ability to address property that falls outside the marital estate. It also serves as a cautionary reminder that appellate arguments must be properly preserved and supported to receive meaningful review.