LexyCorpus case page
CourtListener opinion 10617842
Date unknown · US
- Extracted case name
- pending
- Extracted reporter citation
- pending
- Docket / number
- 2016-002169
Machine-draft headnote
Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10617842 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution 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: ERISA / defined contribution issues
Evidence quotes
QDRO“Husband $3,000 per month in permanent periodic alimony and divided the marital estate, awarding Wife sixty percent and Husband the remaining forty percent. As such, the family court ordered Wife to pay $206,703 of her Sonoco 401(K) plan to Husband by way of a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). In addition, the family court ordered Wife to contribute $5,000 toward Husband's attorney's fees and costs. Wife filed a motion to reconsider on August 10, 2016. The family court denied Wife's motion in an order filed September 23, 2016. This appeal followed. STANDARD OF REVIEW \[T]he proper standard of review in family court matters is de novo.\"”
401(k)“paration. The family court awarded Husband $3,000 per month in permanent periodic alimony and divided the marital estate, awarding Wife sixty percent and Husband the remaining forty percent. As such, the family court ordered Wife to pay $206,703 of her Sonoco 401(K) plan to Husband by way of a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). In addition, the family court ordered Wife to contribute $5,000 toward Husband's attorney's fees and costs. Wife filed a motion to reconsider on August 10, 2016. The family court denied Wife's motion in an order filed September 23, 2016. This appeal followed. STANDARD OF REVIEW \[T]he p”
domestic relations order“,000 per month in permanent periodic alimony and divided the marital estate, awarding Wife sixty percent and Husband the remaining forty percent. As such, the family court ordered Wife to pay $206,703 of her Sonoco 401(K) plan to Husband by way of a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). In addition, the family court ordered Wife to contribute $5,000 toward Husband's attorney's fees and costs. Wife filed a motion to reconsider on August 10, 2016. The family court denied Wife's motion in an order filed September 23, 2016. This appeal followed. STANDARD OF REVIEW \[T]he proper standard of review in family court matters is de novo.\"”
valuation/division“, of Florence, and Marian Dawn Nettles, of Nettles Turbeville & Reddeck, of Lake City, for Respondent. LOCKEMY, C.J.: Alicia M. Rudick (Wife) appeals a family court order claiming the family court improperly valued several marital assets and therefore, the equitable distribution award to Brian R. Rudick (Husband) is incorrect. In addition, Wife argues the family court erred in awarding Husband $3,000 per month in permanent periodic alimony and this court should reverse the award of attorney's fees to Husband. We affirm in part and reverse in part. FACTS Husband and Wife married in 1999 and have three minor children together. Throu”
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: 2016-002169
- 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 Alicia M. Rudick, Appellant, v. Brian R. Rudick, Respondent. Appellate Case No. 2016-002169 Appeal From Darlington County Cely Anne Brigman, Family Court Judge Unpublished Opinion No. 2019-UP-306 Heard June 6, 2019 – Filed August 21, 2019 Withdrawn, Substituted and Refiled December 18, 2019 AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED IN PART Karl Huggins Smith, of Smith Watts & Associates, LLC, of Hartsville, and Gregory Samuel Forman, of Gregory S. Forman, PC, of Charleston, for Appellant. Kevin Mitchell Barth, of Barth, Ballenger & Lewis, LLP, of Florence, and Marian Dawn Nettles, of Nettles Turbeville & Reddeck, of Lake City, for Respondent. LOCKEMY, C.J.: Alicia M. Rudick (Wife) appeals a family court order claiming the family court improperly valued several marital assets and therefore, the equitable distribution award to Brian R. Rudick (Husband) is incorrect. In addition, Wife argues the family court erred in awarding Husband $3,000 per month in permanent periodic alimony and this court should reverse the award of attorney's fees to Husband. We affirm in part and reverse in part. FACTS Husband and Wife married in 1999 and have three minor children together. Throughout the marriage, Wife was employed by Sonoco Products and Husband was employed as a law enforcement officer. Wife's income drastically increased during the marriage, while Husband's income remained essentially the same. The parties separated on April 6, 2015, and Wife filed for divorce on July 12, 2015. A temporary hearing was held on July 13, 2015, and the family court issued a Temporary Consent Order filed on October 19, 2015. The parties participated in a two-day trial on June 2, 2016, and June 20, 2016, which culminated in a Final Order granting the divorce based on one year's continuous separation. The family court awarded Husband $3,000 per month in permanent periodic alimony and divided the marital estate, awarding Wife sixty percent and Husband the remaining forty percent. As such, the family court ordered Wife to pay $206,703 of her Sonoco 401(K) plan to Husband by way of a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). In addition, the family court ordered Wife to contribute $5,000 toward Husband's attorney's fees and costs. Wife filed a motion to reconsider on August 10, 2016. The family court denied Wife's motion in an order filed September 23, 2016. This appeal followed. STANDARD OF REVIEW \[T]he proper standard of review in family court matters is de novo.\" Stoney v.