In a Maryland divorce case, neither valuation expert had any documents or financial information from the husband’s ambulatory surgical center (ASC) in which he owned a small interest. The wife’s expert based his valuation on a recent sale of a controlling interest in the ASC to get an equivalent value for the husband’s remaining share, which amounted to $332,000. The expert for the husband used his Form K-1 and a buy-sell agreement in the operating agreement and came up with a value of $45,000, after revising his opinion along the way. The trial court sided with the wife’s expert, saying his analysis was “more persuasive.” The husband appealed, but the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s ruling, saying that, as long as the court’s decision was “reasonable, logical and explained in detail,” the court was not “clearly erroneous” in choosing the wife’s expert over the husband’s expert.

The case is Goicochea v. Goicochea, 2022 Md. App. LEXIS 729; 2022 WL 5113852, and a case analysis and full opinion can be found on the BVLaw platform.