Schickner v. Schickner
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.
In re Honer
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.
Goodwill Determination Turns on Classification of Auction Business
Appeals court affirms trial court’s finding that all the goodwill in husband’s auction business is nontransferable where the husband is the only licensed auctioneer and the sole shareholder of the company and allows for expansion of concept of profession.
Gallo v. Gallo
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.
Corning v. Corning
The appellant in this case, the wife, appealed the trial court order for equitable distribution and alimony. The crux of the issues revolved around the values and date of value of two businesses owned by the parties and awarded to the husband in the distribution order. The appellate court affirmed the lower court’s orders.
North Carolina Appellate Court Affirms Trial Court Appeal of Valuation of Businesses Divorce
The appellant in this case, the wife, appealed the trial court order for equitable distribution and alimony. The crux of the issues revolved around the values and date of value of two businesses owned by the parties and awarded to the husband in the distribution order. The appellate court affirmed the lower court’s orders.
In re Mauer
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.
Bohme v. Bohme
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.
Freihage v. Freihage
Appeals court acknowledges impossibility of duplicating calculations underlying trial court’s valuation of husband’s LLC owning McDonald’s franchises but surmises result hinges on treatment of funds from family trust to LLC as debt, rather than equity.
Valuation Combines Elements of Rival Experts’ Cash Flow Analyses
Appeals court defers to trial court’s method of applying one expert’s cap rate to other expert’s cash flow analysis when valuing spouse’s interest in closely held company and says “purposeful” application of minority discount has support among valuators.
McCarter v. McCarter
Appeals court affirms trial court’s finding that all the goodwill in husband’s auction business is nontransferable where the husband is the only licensed auctioneer and the sole shareholder of the company and allows for expansion of concept of profession.
High Valuations Complicate Division of Sizable Marital Estate
Appeals court affirms trial court’s above fair market value determinations regarding husband’s interests in various family businesses and the resulting equalization judgment but rejects trial court’s means with which to enforce payment of judgment.
Court Nixes Murky Business Goodwill Determination
Appeals court rejects business goodwill award to the husband as a community asset, finding there was no goodwill in the business entities, as the trial court well knew; the determination is based entirely on the expectancy of husband’s future earnings.
Can You Trust a Valuation That Falls Short of AICPA Standards?
Appeals court finds error in trial court’s refusal to value business; even if limited data caused expert’s estimate to fall short of AICPA standard, it was based on the market approach, a “sound and reasonable method to value a closely-held business.”
Browne v. Browne, Jr.
Appeals court defers to trial court’s method of applying one expert’s cap rate to other expert’s cash flow analysis when valuing spouse’s interest in closely held company and says “purposeful” application of minority discount has support among valuators.
Crider v. Crider
Appeals court affirms trial court’s above fair market value determinations regarding husband’s interests in various family businesses and the resulting equalization judgment but rejects trial court’s means with which to enforce payment of judgment.
Valuation Confirms Salability of ‘Unique’ Restaurant’s Goodwill
State high court rejects per se extension of personal goodwill concept to nonprofessional businesses and finds in case at issue restaurant’s valuation indicates goodwill is marketable and thus corporate and subject to marital distribution.
For DLOM, Court Looks to Signs of Sale of Practice
Court affirms income-based valuation of husband’s dental clinic, including deduction for non-compete attributable to associate, but finds lack of signs that husband intended to sell practice precludes use of DLOM.
Court Affirms ‘Market Valuation Assessment’ of Family Businesses
Expert’s “market valuation assessment” to estimate sale price of husband’s two businesses satisfies principles for valuation of closely held company, says appeals court; case law looks to IRS Revenue Ruling 59-60, but disfavors use of book value.
Marshall v. Marshall (I)
Appeals court says parties’ agreement is ambiguous as to whether distributions related to husband’s ownership in S corp. are includable in alimony and child support calculation; on remand, trial court must determine what income parties meant when specifying use of pretax income from employment.
Courts Agree Reasonable Compensation Is Sound Method for Calculating Spousal Support in S Corp Context
Appeals court says parties’ agreement is ambiguous as to whether distributions related to husband’s ownership in S corp. are includable in alimony and child support calculation; on remand, trial court must determine what income parties meant when specifying use of pretax income from employment.