LexyCorpus case page
CourtListener opinion 10614111
Date unknown · US
- Extracted case name
- pending
- Extracted reporter citation
- pending
- Docket / number
- 2011-186667
Machine-draft headnote
Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10614111 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet.
Retrieval annotation
Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case.
Category: QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues
Evidence quotes
QDRO“) ordering Husband to pay all of Respondent Sarah Jo Gaylord's (Wife) attorney's fees and costs; (6) finding Husband in willful contempt of court and providing the sole remedy through which Husband could purge himself of contempt was payment of $189,016.21 by Qualified Domestic Relations Order from his retirement accounts; and (7) awarding Wife $2,500 per month in permanent periodic alimony. We affirm. 1. As to whether the family court erred in apportioning the marital estate, we find no abuse of discretion because the family court properly considered all fifteen statutory factors and the apportionment was both fair and equitable. See Reiss v. R”
retirement benefits“Sarah Jo Gaylord's (Wife) attorney's fees and costs; (6) finding Husband in willful contempt of court and providing the sole remedy through which Husband could purge himself of contempt was payment of $189,016.21 by Qualified Domestic Relations Order from his retirement accounts; and (7) awarding Wife $2,500 per month in permanent periodic alimony. We affirm. 1. As to whether the family court erred in apportioning the marital estate, we find no abuse of discretion because the family court properly considered all fifteen statutory factors and the apportionment was both fair and equitable. See Reiss v. Reiss, 392 S.C. 198, 211, 708”
domestic relations order“Husband to pay all of Respondent Sarah Jo Gaylord's (Wife) attorney's fees and costs; (6) finding Husband in willful contempt of court and providing the sole remedy through which Husband could purge himself of contempt was payment of $189,016.21 by Qualified Domestic Relations Order from his retirement accounts; and (7) awarding Wife $2,500 per month in permanent periodic alimony. We affirm. 1. As to whether the family court erred in apportioning the marital estate, we find no abuse of discretion because the family court properly considered all fifteen statutory factors and the apportionment was both fair and equitable. See Reiss v. R”
Source and provenance
- Source type
- courtlistener_qdro_opinion_full_text
- Permissions posture
- public
- Generated status
- machine draft public v0
- Review status
- gold label pending
- Jurisdiction metadata
- US
- Deterministic extraction
- docket: 2011-186667
- Generated at
- May 14, 2026
Related public corpus pages
Deterministic links based on shared title/citation terms and QDRO / retirement / family-law retrieval scores.
Clean opinion text
THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR. THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Court of Appeals Sarah Jo Gaylord, Respondent, v. Jules Robert Duncan Gaylord, Appellant. Appellate Case No. 2011-186667 Appeal From Georgetown County Jan Bromell Holmes, Family Court Judge Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-571 Heard September 12, 2012 – Filed October 24, 2012 AFFIRMED G. Robin Alley, of Isaacs & Alley, LLC, of Columbia, for Appellant. Anne E. Janes and M. Elizabeth Snyder, both of Sherrill & Janes, PA, of Surfside Beach, for Respondent. PER CURIAM: In this appeal from a final order of divorce, Appellant Jules Robert Duncan Gaylord (Husband) argues the family court erred in (1) apportioning the marital estate between the parties; (2) finding the promissory notes executed in favor of Husband's mother were unenforceable; (3) dividing the marital property in a manner that was arbitrary, inequitable, and unreasonable; (4) qualifying Lee Camp as an expert in the appraisal of personal property; (5) ordering Husband to pay all of Respondent Sarah Jo Gaylord's (Wife) attorney's fees and costs; (6) finding Husband in willful contempt of court and providing the sole remedy through which Husband could purge himself of contempt was payment of $189,016.21 by Qualified Domestic Relations Order from his retirement accounts; and (7) awarding Wife $2,500 per month in permanent periodic alimony. We affirm. 1. As to whether the family court erred in apportioning the marital estate, we find no abuse of discretion because the family court properly considered all fifteen statutory factors and the apportionment was both fair and equitable. See Reiss v. Reiss, 392 S.C. 198, 211, 708 S.E.2d 799, 806 (Ct. App. 2011) (\The