Summary
Trial court did not err in adopting income-based valuation offered by husband’s expert; appeals court calls husband’s attack on his own expert “counterintuitive” where expert explained the value of the company was in its cash flow rather than its assets.
See Also
Stocker v. Stocker
Trial court did not err in adopting income-based valuation offered by husband’s expert; appeals court calls husband’s attack on his own expert “counterintuitive” where expert explained the value of the company was in its cash flow rather than its assets.