Michigan Court on Double Dipping in Divorce: ‘It Depends’
State spousal support statute does not flatly forbid double dipping, but requires courts to consider all circumstances of a particular case and principles of fairness, appellate court rules.
Unclear Discount of Medical Practice Value Causes Remand
Appellate court rules doctor husband who knew his expert was the only appraiser of his practice cannot blame trial court for relying on expert’s unclear discount in valuation.
Farrell v. Farrell (I)
Appellate court remands for trial court’s express valuation of husband’s business interests and for explanation of its unequal distribution, awarding all of the business interests to husband.
Pappas v. Pappas
In valuing husband’s partnership interest in rental-storage business, trial court could consider income capitalization or cost approach and adopt valuation that included non-controlling (minority) interest discount of 33% based on real estate appraiser’s ...
Buy-Sell Agreement Does Not Control Law Firm Value
Buy-sell agreement did not limit husband’s interest in national law firm to $140,000 or the “realizable benefits” of the practice; valuation should have included assessment of goodwill, appellate court rules.
Halliday v. Halliday
Trial court did not overvalue husband’s interests in various businesses since it applied a DLOC whenever the husband did not have a 100% interest in the company and a DLOM that was consistent with expert testimony, state Court of Appeals finds.
Keig v. Keig
State Court of Appeals values husband’s interest in a family agricultural business at $1 million, including a discount for lack of control, and finds lower court’s $250,000 Grace award to spouse to compensate for exclusion of the value of the business fro ...
Burnett v. Burnett
State Court of Appeals affirms expert’s use of excess earnings method to determine value of husband’s interest in large medical practice finding the calculation properly separated personal from enterprise goodwill.
Colclasure v. Colclasure
State Supreme Court finds trial court erred in valuing husband’s business interest based on buy-out agreement the parties ignored; on remand, valuation must meet statutory requirement of a fair and just division.
Permissible for Trial Court to ‘Blend the Baby’ in Valuing Marital Business?
Appellate court affirms value of movie theatre businesses that falls midway between the experts’ estimates, finding that husband/owner could manipulate their costs and contracts, so wife’s expert had a basis for using industry cost standards but not indus ...
Walsh v. Walsh
Buy-sell agreement did not limit husband’s interest in national law firm to $140,000 or the “realizable benefits” of the practice; valuation should have included assessment of goodwill, appellate court rules.
Bernier Trial Court Gets Tax Affecting Wrong Once Again
Massachusetts Court of Appeals remands the case—for the second time—to the trial court for an appropriate valuation of the parties’ S corporations, including a tax affecting according to the “Kessler metric” (adopted from the Delaware Chancery Court).
Divorce Experts Are $6 Million Apart in Valuing Emergency Clinics
Appellate court affirms $5.4 million value for business that supports emergency services department in hospitals, finding that it appropriately accounted for the risks of losing customer contracts as well as the absence of a non-compete agreement with the ...
Parties Assume Risk of Failing to Value Professional Goodwill
Appellate court affirms trial court valuation of dental practice that included “substantial” goodwill value but did not apportion it between personal and business goodwill, noting that the appealing party bears the burden at trial to establish this amount ...
Divorce Court Errs by Avoiding Difficult-to-Value Minority Stock?
Appellate court affirms trial court’s determination that—despite expert evidence from both parties—the valuation of the wife’s minority shares in a closely held was too speculative, particularly when no actual buyer was likely to buy the shares; a strong ...
Loutts v. Loutts
State spousal support statute does not flatly forbid double dipping, but requires courts to consider all circumstances of a particular case and principles of fairness, appellate court rules.
Peltzer v. Peltzer
Appellate court rules doctor husband who knew his expert was the only appraiser of his practice cannot blame trial court for relying on expert’s unclear discount in valuation.
Divorce Court Discredits Experts for Manipulating Data
Divorce court finds that husband manipulated assets of trucking company during divorce to lower its net asset value, and discredits husband’s expert for relying on manipulated data and applying a 10% marketability discount.
Impact of Economic Changes During Divorce Are Material
When the original valuation date preceded the 2008-2009 economic crisis, trial court erred by failing to consider its impact on the value of the business prior to trial.
Minority Discount Can Help Determine Passive Versus Active Appreciation
Appellate court affirms expert testimony regarding factors that contributed to active vs. passive appreciation of the marital business; even though his report didn’t make specific conclusions, it did apply a 10% discount for lack of control, which, while ...
Court Tries to Make ‘Heads or Tails’ of Discounts in Divorce
Appellate court affirms “sizeable” discounts for real estate development companies, including ones for bulk sale and carrying costs.
Divorce Expert Gives Conflicting Values for Rental Car Business
Divorce court discredits conflict between expert’s testimony at trial and then a rehearing, when he originally said the husband’s rental car business was worth a net $200,000 as of 2008 but then later changed his opinion to say it was worth nothing at tha ...
Danger of ‘Limited Appraisal’ in Divorce
Court dismisses wife’s claim fraud against the husband, finding that she accepted $1 million for her share in the marital business, based on a limited appraisal, and waited too long after finding out the company sold for $54 million to bring her suit.
Moore v. Moore, Inc.
Appellate court affirms value of movie theatre businesses that falls midway between the experts’ estimates, finding that husband/owner could manipulate their costs and contracts, so wife’s expert had a basis for using industry cost standards but not indus ...