Kim v. Kim

BVLaw
Full Text of Court Cases
January 8, 2020

Access the Full Article

This article and its downloads are available with a subscription to any of these products:
It is also available in this product:
Already a subscriber or product owner?  Login
This article is also available for purchase. (7,474 words)   Add to Cart >>
Need help? Contact us:
1-503-479-8200 ext 2 or sales@bvresources.com
6282 Investment Advice
523930 Investment Advice
marital dissolution/divorce
expert testimony, income approach, net asset value, normalization, double dip, future income, double counting, compensation
Kim v. Kim
2020-Ohio-22
US
State Court
Ohio
Court of Appeals
Jason Bogniard (husband/appellant); none (wife/appellee)
Schafer

Summary

Ohio appeals court upholds trial court’s spousal support determination based on husband’s average, rather than normalized, income, finding “equity did not require a double-dipping offset”; court agrees with sister court’s ruling in Gallo that applicable statute does not prohibit double dipping.
Kim v. Kim
PDF, Size: 200 KB

See Also

Ohio Court Affirms Facts of Case Don’t Require ‘Double-Dipping Offset’

Court Case Digests
January 8, 2020

Ohio appeals court upholds trial court’s spousal support determination based on husband’s average, rather than normalized, income, finding “equity did not require a double-dipping offset”; court agrees with sister court’s ruling in Gallo that applicable statute does not prohibit double dipping.

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