Expand the following panels for additional search options.

Neutral valuer does what he can with limited info

In a California divorce case, a court-appointed valuation expert was caught in the middle of a squabbling couple who didn’t provide enough information to value all the marital assets, including business interests.

In re Hebert

In this New Hampshire divorce appeal, the husband appealed the trial court’s property division, the awarding of 13 years of alimony, awarding of 100% of the proceeds of the sale of residences, and awarding 50% of the value of the husband’s business and the real estate where the business was located. The Supreme Court of New Hampshire affirmed in part and remanded in part.

New Hampshire Supreme Court Affirms in Part and Vacates in Part and Remands Divorce Trial Court—Husband Fails to Provide Support for Expenses

In this New Hampshire divorce appeal, the husband appealed the trial court’s property division, the awarding of 13 years of alimony, awarding of 100% of the proceeds of the sale of residences, and awarding 50% of the value of the husband’s business and the real estate where the business was located. The Supreme Court of New Hampshire affirmed in part and remanded in part.

Court KO’s market comp analysis due to industry choice

What business is your subject company in?

Cronan v. Cronan

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.

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.

Business Valuation Update Yearbook, 2024 Edition

January 2024 PDF, Softcover (401 pages)

BVR (editor)

Business Valuation Resources, LLC

Another year has come and gone and it's time again for one of BVR's “greatest hits” publications!  The Business Valuation Update Yearbook 2024 covers the previous year’s most groundbreaking and thought-provoking advancements in valuation.  It captures changes in regulations and professional standards, key takeaways from professional conferences, and tactical practice-building ideas. This critical desktop reference puts you ahead of the competition with on-the-ground reporting by the BVR editorial team including an Introduction by Andy Dzamba, BVR Executive Editor and insights from notable BV experts. Learn more >>

Business Valuation Case Law Yearbook, 2024 Edition

January 2024 PDF, Softcover (222 pages)

BVR (editor)

Business Valuation Resources, LLC

The legal coverage and in-depth analysis from the BVR legal team including an Introduction by Jim Alerding, BVR Legal Editor delivers lessons learned to help appraisers reach better and more defensible valuation conclusions. The 2024 Yearbook illustrates how financial experts helped their side win (and lose) in the courtroom and includes 70 new cases that were added to BVLaw in 2023. Learn more >>

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.

Valuation of business hit by COVID-19 in recent divorce case

If you haven’t done so already, sooner or later you will value a business affected by COVID-19.

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.

Delay in divorce decree does not change valuation date

In a Montana divorce case, the husband became an owner of a business right before marriage.

Do-over case may need an active/passive appreciation analysis

In an Alaska divorce case, an appellate court (the state's Supreme Court) remanded the case back to the state’s Superior Court because the findings on the husband’s business as marital property were not detailed enough to allow for appellate review.

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.

Calculation report used in court but had no rival

Most valuation analysts will not use a calculation report in court. But what if the other side has nothing?

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.

Montana Supreme Court Holds Proper Date of Business Value Is the Date of Trial (2014), Not the Date of Dissolution (2017)

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.

Illinois Appellate Court Affirms Value of Business Where the Parties Provided No Evidence

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 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.

Active depreciation charged to business owner in divorce

In a South Carolina divorce case, the business owner (husband) appealed the family court’s decision on the valuation of the family business.

1 - 25 of 2,911 results