Bohme v. Bohme

BVLaw
Full Text of Court Cases
January 30, 2015

Access the Full Article

This article and its downloads are available with a subscription to any of these products:
It is also available in these products:
Already a subscriber or product owner?  Login
This article is also available for purchase. (11,769 words)   Add to Cart >>
Need help? Contact us:
1-503-479-8200 ext 2 or sales@bvresources.com
8021 Offices and Clinics of Dentists
621210 Offices of Dentists
marital dissolution/divorce
income approach, asset approach, capitalization of earnings, capitalization rate, discount for lack of marketability (DLOM), double dip, market approach, valuation date, fixed assets, future income, valuation
Bohme v. Bohme
2015 Ohio App. LEXIS 325
US
State Court
Ohio
Court of Appeals
Milton Zimmerman, J.R. Hochwalt (husband); Alan Duvall (wife)
Hall

Summary

In a divorce case involving dental practice, appeals court says using income stream “as a tool” to value a professional business and then using it “as actual income for a spousal support calculation” does not per se amount to impermissible double dipping.
Bohme v. Bohme
PDF, Size: 97 KB

See Also

Court Backs Away From Support for Double-Dip Theory

Legal and Court Case Update
May 2015

In a divorce case involving dental practice, appeals court says using income stream “as a tool” to value a professional business and then using it “as actual income for a spousal support calculation” does not per se amount to impermissible double dipping.

This article also appears in:
Business Valuation in Divorce Case Law Compendium
Business Valuation in Divorce Case Law Compendium - Fifth Edition
Business Valuation in Healthcare Case Law Compendium