Fair v. Fair

BVLaw
Full Text of Court Cases
July 19, 2022
3841 Surgical and Medical Instruments and Apparatus
339112 Surgical and Medical Instrument Manufacturing
shareholder dissent/oppression
goodwill, personal goodwill, discount, discount for lack of marketability (DLOM), minority discount, separate property, community property, liquidity, salary, fair market value, trial court

Fair v. Fair
2022 La. App. Unpub. LEXIS 116; 2021 1047 (La.App.1 Cir. 07/19/22); 2022 WL 2812892
United States
State Court
Louisiana
Court of Appeal
Madison Field, John W. Theriot
Guidry, Holdridge, Chutz

Summary

The primary issue in this appeal was the value of Surgical Imaging Specialists Inc. (SIS), a subchapter S corporation that the parties formed in 2002. Stephan Fair, the husband, was the sole registered shareholder of SIS. Darlene Fair, the wife, was listed on all tax returns as an equal owner. The trial court awarded all community property interest to the husband and eliminated 25% of SIS’ goodwill as personal goodwill. On appeal, the husband contended that the trial court undervalued the personal goodwill discount and failed to apply a discount for lack of marketability. The husband also appealed the separate property award of an IRA account and a reimbursement to the wife for additional salary payments made by SIS to the husband. The court of appeal affirmed the trial court value of SIS, remanded the issue of IRA gains, and affirmed the reimbursement for additional salary payments.
Fair v. Fair
PDF, Size: 1,450 KB

See Also

Appellate Court Rules on the Value of the Marital Business as to Personal Goodwill, Minority, Liquidity, and Marketability Discounts

The primary issue in this appeal was the value of Surgical Imaging Specialists Inc. (SIS), a subchapter S corporation that the parties formed in 2002. Stephan Fair, the husband, was the sole registered shareholder of SIS. Darlene Fair, the wife, was listed on all tax returns as an equal owner. The trial court awarded all community property interest to the husband and eliminated 25% of SIS’ goodwill as personal goodwill. On appeal, the husband contended that the trial court undervalued the personal goodwill discount and failed to apply a discount for lack of marketability. The husband also appealed the separate property award of an IRA account and a reimbursement to the wife for additional salary payments made by SIS to the husband. The court of appeal affirmed the trial court value of SIS, remanded the issue of IRA gains, and affirmed the reimbursement for additional salary payments.