The Supreme Court of Alaska Affirms the Use of a Range of Value to Determine the Value of a Business

BVLaw
Court Case Digests
October 11, 2023
3325 Steel Foundries, NEC
331513 Steel Foundries (except Investment)
marital dissolution/divorce
goodwill, divorce, marital estate, property division, marital property, trial court

B.M. v. R.C.
2023 Alas. LEXIS 102
US
State Court
Alaska
Supreme Court
Maassen, Carney, Borghesan, Henderson

Summary

The husband did not engage a valuation of his business, but the wife did. Her valuation expert arrived at a range of values, explaining that he lacked some information and that the information he did have regarding the financial status of the business did not reconcile. As a result, he set a range of values and determined that a range was the most appropriate way to determine the value. The trial court took an average of the range to determine the value for purposes of the marital estate. The supreme court affirmed the lower court decision to average the values.

See Also

B.M. v. R.C.

The husband did not engage a valuation of his business, but the wife did. Her valuation expert arrived at a range of values, explaining that he lacked some information and that the information he did have regarding the financial status of the business did not reconcile. As a result, he set a range of values and determined that a range was the most appropriate way to determine the value. The trial court took an average of the range to determine the value for purposes of the marital estate. The supreme court affirmed the lower court decision to average the values.

This article also appears in:
Business Valuation UpdateVol. 29 No. 12