In a California divorce case, a court-appointed valuation expert was caught in the middle of a squabbling couple who didn’t provide enough information to value all the marital assets, including business interests. The couple had agreed to mediation, which produced a settlement agreement and a stipulated judgment. But the wife had second thoughts and asked that the judgment be set aside, accusing the husband of hiding and undervaluing assets. Along the way, the valuation expert’s assignment kept changing and he continued to ask the parties for the information he needed to do a complete job.

Stuck it out: Instead of resigning from the engagement, the expert informed the parties and the trial court that he could not value certain assets or even verify their existence because he was not given sufficient information. The trial court declined to set aside the judgment, noting that the wife failed to prove any misrepresentations by the husband. The wife appealed, but she did not prevail.

The case is In re Hembree, 2024 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 196; 2024 WL 135942, and a case analysis and the full opinion are available on the BVLaw platform.