Sternat v. Sternat
Appeals court says trial court’s decision to admit opinion of seasoned CPA expert who was not a credentialed business valuator was not error because valuation was a “non-issue” where evidence showed the indebted company was no longer a going concern.
Tennessee Appeals Court Straddles Goodwill Issue in Divorce
Appeals court finds enterprise goodwill is not a marital asset when the business is a sole proprietorship and orders trial court to produce a valuation of husband’s solo dental practice without “consideration of professional or enterprise goodwill.”
Husband's Roles in Company Negate Need for DLOC
Court affirms valuation of husband’s minority interest in business featuring zero DLOC where husband was key driving force behind business’s success and wielded influence and control; use of asset approach rendered double-dip theory inapplicable.
Gifford v Gifford
New York appellate court finds trial court’s spousal support determination violated double counting rule where expert valued husband’s solely owned engineering company based on an income approach and the business was a service business.
Moore v. Moore
In a first, state high court “cautiously” decides enterprise goodwill is marital property subject to equitable division and affirms that personal goodwill is not; court rejects claim that only professionals can develop personal goodwill in a business.
Court Infers Nature of Goodwill From Nature of Business
Appeals court affirms trial court’s valuation, which implicitly assigned goodwill to business, finding that since the company was not a professional practice it is likely that the company’s, rather than the owner spouse’s, reputation brings in business.
Settele v. Settele
Appeals court rejects claim that accounts receivable used in asset-based business valuation by wife’s expert are analogous to future income stream for purposes of arguing double dip in light of income determination for spousal support award.
Berg v. Young
Appeals court says trial court erred in interpreting prenuptial agreement but reached correct result when it rejected wife’s claim to enhanced value of husband’s separate interest in car dealership by ruling appreciation in value was passive, not active.
Court Validates Zero Goodwill for Naturopathic Practice
State high court affirms trial court’s determination that husband’s naturopathic practice had zero goodwill value based solely on husband’s testimony that a similar practice in the area failed to attract a buyer despite being on the market for a year.
K.T. v. M.T.
Appeals court affirms trial court’s ruling finding that, without noncompete from owner-spouse, under FMV standard, financial advisor’s solo practice fetches only net book value of its tangible assets; most of value lies in owner-spouse’s personal goodwill ...
In re Marriage of Hartung
Court rejects income approach for valuing interest in business with low bar of entry and few repeat customers; court also says asset-based valuation following Section 179 tax treatment understates true value of the company and requires upward adjustment.
No Automatic Bar to Minority Discount in Divorce Cases
Appeals court says state law does not bar use of minority share discount in divorce cases and declines to impose a bright-line rule; rather, the trial court has to consider interest holder’s level of control and likelihood of sale before use of discount.
Court Affirms Rightness of Expert’s ‘Marital Value’ Calculation
Court upholds expert’s idiosyncratic valuation approach based on ascertaining “marital value” of community’s grocery stores as opposed to stores’ “investment value”; since the stores were not sold, valuation properly captured their value to owner spouse.
Lunn v. Lunn
Appeals court finds enterprise goodwill is not a marital asset when the business is a sole proprietorship and orders trial court to produce a valuation of husband’s solo dental practice without “consideration of professional or enterprise goodwill.”
Asset Approach Avoids Double Counting of Future Earnings
Appeals court affirms trial court’s decision favoring asset approach for valuing owner spouse’s medical practices; unlike income approach, it avoids accounting for owner spouse’s future earning twice, in asset valuation and determination of alimony.
Sieber v. Sieber
Court affirms valuation of husband’s minority interest in business featuring zero DLOC where husband was key driving force behind business’s success and wielded influence and control; use of asset approach rendered double-dip theory inapplicable.
Rabe v. Rabe (II)
Appeals court affirms trial court’s valuation, which implicitly assigned goodwill to business, finding that since the company was not a professional practice it is likely that the company’s, rather than the owner spouse’s, reputation brings in business.
Court Backs Away From Support for Double-Dip Theory
In a divorce case involving dental practice, appeals court says using income stream “as a tool” to value a professional business and then using it “as actual income for a spousal support calculation” does not per se amount to impermissible double dipping.
Court Rejects Flat Prohibition Against Double Dipping
Appeals court finds Ohio statute requires trial court to consider income from all sources in calculating spousal support and overrules Heller I to extent Heller imposes a flat prohibition against double dipping; mandate is to ensure fairness and equity.
Reedy-Huffman v. Huffman
State high court affirms trial court’s determination that husband’s naturopathic practice had zero goodwill value based solely on husband’s testimony that a similar practice in the area failed to attract a buyer despite being on the market for a year.