This appeal in a California court involved a dispute over an appraisal of the plaintiffs’ 15% interest in a grocery store the defendant operated. The plaintiffs alleged that the award of the superior court was obtained by fraud and that the arbitrator prejudiced their rights.
View Case Digest View Case
Rhode Island Supreme Court Affirms Value of Interest in Medical Practice Per Shareholder Agreement and Equitable Distribution of Assets
This case concerned an appeal of a family court magistrate’s decision as to the value of marital assets and the distribution thereof and denial of alimony to the wife. The plaintiff, the husband, is a physician shareholder in a medical imaging practice. The practice had a shareholder agreement that provided for the price to buy into and sell out of the practice. The wife’s expert determined the value of the husband’s shares under the fair market value standard but the trial court and supreme court went with the agreement value.
U.S. Appellate Court Affirms Witness’s Exclusion—Cites New Rule 702 but Follows Abrogated Precedent Instead
The district court in this case excluded the testimony of the plaintiffs’ medical expert witness in this medical malpractice case, citing Rule 702, resulting in a summary judgment against the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs appealed, but the circuit court affirmed the district court, citing Rule 702 in affirming the exclusion of the plaintiffs’ witness. Even though the 2023 amended Rule 702 was cited, the circuit court reverted back to the pre-amended Rule 702 to bolster its exclusion of the witness.
Rodriguez v. Hosp. San Cristobal, Inc.
The district court in this case excluded the testimony of the plaintiffs’ medical expert witness in this medical malpractice case, citing Rule 702, resulting in a summary judgment against the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs appealed, but the circuit court affirmed the district court, citing Rule 702 in affirming the exclusion of the plaintiffs’ witness. Even though the 2023 amended Rule 702 was cited, the circuit court reverted back to the pre-amended Rule 702 to bolster its exclusion of the witness.
In re Hembree
In this appeal of a denied motion by the wife to set aside a marital settlement order, the appellate court affirmed the trial court. The wife claimed that the husband did not disclose a number of marital assets and misrepresented the values of certain marital assets. The trial court appointed its own expert for valuation of assets. The expert was unable to value a number of the assets for lack of information including a lack of proof of existence of some alleged assets.
Appellate Court (California) Affirms Denial of Wife’s Motion Claiming Missing Assets and Undervalued Assets
In this appeal of a denied motion by the wife to set aside a marital settlement order, the appellate court affirmed the trial court. The wife claimed that the husband did not disclose a number of marital assets and misrepresented the values of certain marital assets. The trial court appointed its own expert for valuation of assets. The expert was unable to value a number of the assets for lack of information including a lack of proof of existence of some alleged assets.
Lazar v. Mor
The plaintiffs in this business dispute submitted motions to amend their complaint, alleging that the defendants contributed only a fraction of their required capital contributions. The result was, per the plaintiffs, that the defendants were overpaid, and the plaintiffs were shorted millions in distributions from the net proceeds of the sale of the properties.
Motion to Amend for Consideration of Variable Member Interests Granted
The plaintiffs in this business dispute submitted motions to amend their complaint, alleging that the defendants contributed only a fraction of their required capital contributions. The result was, per the plaintiffs, that the defendants were overpaid, and the plaintiffs were shorted millions in distributions from the net proceeds of the sale of the properties.
Motobilt, Inc. v. Bystronic, Inc.
In this breach of warranty case, the plaintiff offered opinions of a damages expert but found the expert’s opinions inadmissible. The defendant argued that the plaintiff’s expert “applies accounting and economic principles” to assess the value of the equipment, but his report did not identify any such principles or explain how they supported his valuation methodology. Since the plaintiff had no damages evidence to offer, the defendant was granted summary judgment.
U.S. District Court Finds Plaintiff’s Expert’s Testimony Inadmissible and Grants Summary Judgement to Defendant
In this breach of warranty case, the plaintiff offered opinions of a damages expert but found the expert’s opinions inadmissible. The defendant argued that the plaintiff’s expert “applies accounting and economic principles” to assess the value of the equipment, but his report did not identify any such principles or explain how they supported his valuation methodology. Since the plaintiff had no damages evidence to offer, the defendant was granted summary judgment.
In re Burg
The debtor withheld records and failed to explain missing assets and deleted records and misled the court as to what he did with certain assets. The debtor also knowingly and fraudulently withheld records from the trustee. This was all part of a scheme the debtor devised with the help of a “consultant” to avoid repaying the plaintiff creditors.
Bankruptcy Court Denies Debtor Discharge for Fraud, Failure to Produce Records and Fraudulent Transfers
The debtor withheld records and failed to explain missing assets and deleted records and misled the court as to what he did with certain assets. The debtor also knowingly and fraudulently withheld records from the trustee. This was all part of a scheme the debtor devised with the help of a “consultant” to avoid repaying the plaintiff creditors.
Bextermueller News Distribs., Inc. v. Lee Enters.
In determining damages, the plaintiffs’ damages expert used a method of determining damages revolving around a calculation of lost revenue. The defendants argued the testimony was irrelevant and unreliable because the lost revenue calculations were based on the erroneous premise that the plaintiffs were entitled to recover, as damages, delivery fees for digital subscribers to a newspaper. The court disagreed and excluded the expert’s testimony under Rule 702.
Plaintiff Expert Is Excluded—Lost Revenue Calculation Is Not an Approach Allowed for Damages in Missouri (Rule 702 Exclusion)
Plaintiff news carriers operated as home delivery carriers under a contract with the defendant newspaper. Around 2017, the defendant began offering an electronic version of the newspaper, allegedly breaching the exclusive territorial provisions of the contract with the carriers. In determining damages, the plaintiffs’ damages expert used a method of determining damages revolving around a calculation of lost revenue. The defendants argued her testimony was irrelevant and unreliable because her lost revenue calculations were based on the erroneous premise that the plaintiffs were entitled to recover, as damages, delivery fees for every digital subscriber. The court disagreed and excluded the expert’s testimony under Rule 702.
In re Marriage of Bornhofen
In this Illinois divorce case, the trial court adopted the value of the husband’s expert as to the value of the husband’s business and rejected the wife’s expert’s value. The trial court determined that the husband’s expert’s value was the only credible value. The wife sought to introduce additional valuation evidence, which the trial court also rejected. The appellate court affirmed the decision of the trial court.
Appellate Court (Illinois) Affirms Trial Court’s Rejection of One Expert’s Business Value and Adopts the Other Expert’s Value
In this Illinois divorce case, the trial court adopted the value of the husband’s expert as to the value of the husband’s business and rejected the wife’s expert’s value. The trial court determined that the husband’s expert’s value was the only credible value. The wife sought to introduce additional valuation evidence, which the trial court also rejected. The appellate court affirmed the decision of the trial court.
Julie A. Su v. Reliance Trust Co.
In this ESOP-related case, the court ruled that two experts of a former defendant can testify for the remaining defendants to the extent their testimony was not duplicative. The defendant’s motion to exclude testimony of the government’s (plaintiff’s) witness because the new FRE 702 rules were not followed was denied, as the court explained the new FRE 702 had not been violated.
U.S. District Court Allows Nonduplicative Testimony of Experts and Allows Testimony on Clarification of New FRE 702
In this ESOP-related case, the court ruled that two experts of a former defendant can testify for the remaining defendants to the extent their testimony was not duplicative. The defendant’s motion to exclude testimony of the government’s (plaintiff’s) witness because the new FRE 702 rules were not followed was denied, as the court explained the new FRE 702 had not been violated.
Abeome Corp., Inc. v. Stevens
The parties did not agree on a fair value of the shares in a dissenting shareholder suit. The court, using information in evidence, including expert witness testimony from both parties’ experts, determined the fair value.
U.S. District Court Determines Fair Value of Shares
The parties did not agree on a fair value of the shares in a dissenting shareholder suit. The court, using information in evidence, including expert witness testimony from both parties’ experts, determined the fair value.
Dawson v. Dawson
The court of appeals, in an Arizona divorce case, affirmed the decision of the Superior Court to accept the wife’s expert’s value of the husband’s business. The wife’s expert used a three-year look back average of cash flows, while the husband’s expert utilized the most current year’s cash flow.
Court Chooses Three-Year Average Cash Flow Over Single to Determine Value of Husband’s Business—Appellate Court Affirms
The court of appeals, in an Arizona divorce case, affirmed the decision of the Superior Court to accept the wife’s expert’s value of the husband’s business. The wife’s expert used a three-year look back average of cash flows, while the husband’s expert utilized the most current year’s cash flow.
Fowler v. Fowler
In this divorce appeal, the court affirmed the value of the parties’ pharmacy corporation. The husband, appellant, parsed out components of a CVA’s valuation and did not offer an expert or his own opinion as to the value.
Arkansas Appellate Court Affirms Value of Pharmacy—Only One Valuation Opinion Offered
In this divorce appeal, the court affirmed the value of the parties’ pharmacy corporation. The husband, appellant, parsed out components of a CVA’s valuation and did not offer an expert or his own opinion as to the value.
In re Marriage of Remitz
In this divorce case, the Montana Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s use of the date of dissolution, May 2017, as the valuation date, reversed the trial court’s revaluation of the husband’s business, and reverted to the value determined to the trial date in 2014. The wife had no involvement in the business subsequent to the 2014 trial date.
In re Hussain
Both parties appealed this Illinois divorce case. While several issues were appealed, we focus on the value of the business and the determination of debts against the business. Since the trial court was not given any substantial evidence as to the value of the business, it determined the value on its own with limited information. The appellate court affirmed that value. Additionally, the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s disallowance of debts against the business.