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.
Lymburner v. Axhelm
In a divorce case in Alaska, the Supreme Court determined that the wife’s expert’s valuation was superior to the husband’s expert’s valuation. Thus, the value of the business was not at issue on a remand. What was at issue was whether some or all of the businesses were separate property rather than marital property as the lower court ruled.
Alaska Supreme Court Remands for Determination of Marital Property But Affirms Lower Court’s Acceptance of Wife’s Business Value
In a divorce case in Alaska, the Supreme Court determined that the wife’s expert’s valuation was superior to the husband’s expert’s valuation. Thus, the value of the business was not at issue on a remand. What was at issue was whether some or all of the businesses were separate property rather than marital property as the lower court ruled.
No do-over for valuation of business hit by COVID-19
In a Wisconsin marital dissolution case, COVID-19 negatively impacted the husband’s hair salon business, which had to shut down for a while.
Barnes v. Barnes
The trial for this divorce case was extended almost eight months because the parties had assured the court it would be a three-day trial and it took four days. The fourth day was almost eight months after the end of the third day of trial. As a result, the husband argued that the value of his business should have been updated and consideration given to the effect of splitting the business’s real estate from the operations of the business. The appellate court noted that this issue had not been raised at trial and was, therefore, not appealable. Other issues not related to the business were issues for the appellate court.
Tennessee Appeals Court Affirms Trial Court Valuation and Trial Court’s Skepticism of Husband’s ‘Projections’
The trial for this divorce case was extended almost eight months because the parties had assured the court it would be a three-day trial and it took four days. The fourth day was almost eight months after the end of the third day of trial. As a result, the husband argued that the value of his business should have been updated and consideration given to the effect of splitting the business’s real estate from the operations of the business. The appellate court noted that this issue had not been raised at trial and was, therefore, not appealable. Other issues not related to the business were issues for the appellate court.
Clampitt v. Clampitt
The husband appealed the family court’s valuation of the family business. In a brief opinion, the court of appeals (South Carolina) affirmed the family court’s value because the change in value during the litigation was attributable to the husband, the family court accounted for personal goodwill, and the valuation was within the range of evidence presented.
B.M. v. R.C.
The husband did not engage a valuation of his business, but the wife did. Her valuation expert arrived at a range of values, explaining that he lacked some information and that the information he did have regarding the financial status of the business did not reconcile. As a result, he set a range of values and determined that a range was the most appropriate way to determine the value. The trial court took an average of the range to determine the value for purposes of the marital estate. The supreme court affirmed the lower court decision to average the values.
South Carolina Appeals Court Affirms Value of Family Business—Within Evidence Presented
The husband appealed the family court’s valuation of the family business. In a brief opinion, the court of appeals (South Carolina) affirmed the family court’s value because the change in value during the litigation was attributable to the husband, the family court accounted for personal goodwill, and the valuation was within the range of evidence presented.
The Supreme Court of Alaska Affirms the Use of a Range of Value to Determine the Value of a Business
The husband did not engage a valuation of his business, but the wife did. Her valuation expert arrived at a range of values, explaining that he lacked some information and that the information he did have regarding the financial status of the business did not reconcile. As a result, he set a range of values and determined that a range was the most appropriate way to determine the value. The trial court took an average of the range to determine the value for purposes of the marital estate. The supreme court affirmed the lower court decision to average the values.