Absent any valuation, court uses book value
In an Ohio divorce case, neither the husband nor the wife engaged a valuation expert to appraise the family business, a small company that manufactures parts for racing cars, firearms, and paintball guns.
Court excludes valuation expert by mistake
In an Ohio divorce matter, an appellate court has remanded a case back to the trial court because it “abused its discretion” when it excluded a valuation expert’s testimony and report.
Bergquist v. Bergquist
The appellate court (Indiana) found that the circuit court abused its discretion when valuing the wife’s business by not determining a value based on there being no evidence that would support such a value. The appellate court remanded the issue of the value of the business for determination based on evidence that would support it.
Indiana Appellate Court Remands to Revalue Wife’s Business Supported by the Evidence
The appellate court (Indiana) found that the circuit court abused its discretion when valuing the wife’s business by not determining a value based on there being no evidence that would support such a value. The appellate court remanded the issue of the value of the business for determination based on evidence that would support it.
Court doesn’t appreciate active/passive analysis
An Alaska divorce case illustrates that the analysis of active and passive appreciation of a business during marriage continues to be a tricky one.
West v. West
The wife appealed the valuation of the husband’s business, asserting that the trial court should have instructed the parties to submit evidence supporting the value instead of determining the value itself based on the evidence actually before the court. The trial court was affirmed.
Ohio Court of Appeals Affirms the Value of Husband’s Business Based on ‘the Evidence That Was Actually Before the Trial Court’
The wife appealed the valuation of the husband’s business, asserting that the trial court should have instructed the parties to submit evidence supporting the value instead of determining the value itself based on the evidence actually before the court. The trial court was affirmed.
Basic assumption drives valuers way apart
In an Illinois divorce case, different fundamental assumptions about the husband’s picture frame business yielded greatly disparate values from the two experts.
Miller v. Miller
In this Ohio divorce case, the trial court did not consider a valuation report of a competent expert the husband submitted. As such, “the trial court erred by sustaining an objection which appellant never made and by rendering judgment without considering all the evidence presented.” The trial court also erred by failing to reserve jurisdiction to modify the spousal maintenance award and not explaining why it refused to do so. The Appellate Court remanded on both of the above issues.
Ohio Trial Court Fails to Consider Expert Testimony—Appellate Court Remands
In this Ohio divorce case, the trial court did not consider a valuation report of a competent expert the husband submitted. As such, “the trial court erred by sustaining an objection which appellant never made and by rendering judgment without considering all the evidence presented.” The trial court also erred by failing to reserve jurisdiction to modify the spousal maintenance award and not explaining why it refused to do so. The Appellate Court remanded on both of the above issues.
Demenno v. Demenno
The Alaska Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court in determining the value of active appreciation and affirmed that the property in question remained the husband’s separate property and did not transmute to the marital estate.
Supreme Court (Alaska) Affirms Trial Court Calculation of Active Appreciation
The Alaska Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court in determining the value of active appreciation and affirmed that the property in question remained the husband’s separate property and did not transmute to the marital estate.
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 Rozdolsky
In this complex Illinois divorce case, the appellate court affirmed the valuation of the husband’s business. The trial court had already reduced the wife’s expert’s valuation by 30%. Overall, the husband raised nine issues on appeal, including having to contribute to the wife’s attorney’s and expert fees, resulting from the husband’s lack of cooperation in discovery.
Illinois Appellate Court Affirms Valuation of Marital Business
In this complex Illinois divorce case, the appellate court affirmed the valuation of the husband’s business. The trial court had already reduced the wife’s expert’s valuation by 30%. Overall, the husband raised nine issues on appeal, including having to contribute to the wife’s attorney’s and expert fees, resulting from the husband’s lack of cooperation in discovery.
Smith v. Smith
In this divorce case appeal, the appeals court remanded to the Chancery Court the issue of separate versus marital property. The appellate court determined that one of the husband’s businesses was marital property and not separate property as the Chancery Court decided. It remanded that portion of the Chancery decision with instructions to change the ruling and determine a value for the now marital property business—but without any goodwill.
Appellate Court (Mississippi) Affirms That Goodwill Is Not a Marital Asset
In this divorce case appeal, the appeals court remanded to the Chancery Court the issue of separate versus marital property. The appellate court determined that one of the husband’s businesses was marital property and not separate property as the Chancery Court decided. It remanded that portion of the Chancery decision with instructions to change the ruling and determine a value for the now marital property business—but without any goodwill.
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
Business Valuation Case Law Yearbook, 2024 Edition
January 2024 PDF, Softcover (222 pages)
BVR (editor)
Business Valuation Resources, LLC
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.