Hollis v. Hollis

BVLaw
Full Text of Court Cases
June 29, 2022
6282 Investment Advice
523930 Investment Advice
marital dissolution/divorce
goodwill, divorce, child support, financial advisor, marital asset, marital estate, marital property, alimony, trial court

Hollis v. Hollis
2022 Tenn. App. LEXIS 250; 2022 WL 2348567
United States
State Court
Tennessee
Court of Appeals
Robert Vance, CPA
D. Michael Swiney; Frank G. Clement Jr.; Thomas R. Frierson, II

Summary

One of the main issues in this appeal was how to classify the husband’s “book of business,” i.e., his client relationships, assets under management, and related income. The husband was a financial advisor for UBS. The wife contended the book of business had value that constituted a marital asset. The husband pointed out that UBS now took the position that a financial advisor who left the company cannot take any information with him or her. The court also noted that “deferred cash agreements” were actually bonuses that were marital assets. The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s decision to exclude the book of business from marital assets. The court also affirmed the trial court decision on payment of alimony to the wife “in futuro.”
Hollis v. Hollis
PDF, Size: 278 KB

See Also

The Tennessee Appeals Court Affirms the Trial Court’s Decision to Exclude From the Marital Estate Financial Advisor the Husband’s ‘Book of Business’

One of the main issues in this appeal was how to classify the husband’s “book of business,” i.e., his client relationships, assets under management, and related income. The husband was a financial advisor for UBS. The wife contended the book of business had value that constituted a marital asset. The husband pointed out that UBS now took the position that a financial advisor who left the company cannot take any information with him or her. The court also noted that “deferred cash agreements” were actually bonuses that were marital assets. The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s decision to exclude the book of business from marital assets. The court also affirmed the trial court decision on payment of alimony to the wife “in futuro.”