In the Matter of Cottrell
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 ...
Bernier v. Bernier (II)
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 Dispute DLOM in Valuing Pharmacy
North Carolina court of appeals affirms application of discount for lack of marketability to value of marital business (hospital pharmacy), as substantiated by the evidence.
Duke v. Duke
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 ...
Doctor Has Only $1 Interest in the Practice, According to Buy-Sell
A medical partnership’s exclusive contract to provide anesthesiology services to a hospital is an intangible asset, but since buy-sell agreement limits wife’s interest to $1.00, the court finds she has no ownership interest in the business and the contrac ...
Massachusetts Courts Leaning Toward ‘Equitable’ Solution to the Double Dip
Massachusetts Court of Appeals acknowledge trend in that state to find an equitable solution to the problem of the double dip in divorce, involving making separate findings regarding the income of the owner-spouse from the business and the income/assets o ...
Problems in Valuing Auto Dealerships During the Downturn
Appellate court holds that valuation date must bear a “rational relationship” to the assets being valued, and confirms no value for the auto dealership in this case, based on standard appraisal practice to round negative values to zero.
In the Matter of the Marriage of Gay
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 ...
Fair Value Standard in Massachusetts Precludes Any Discounts in Divorce
Massachusetts Court of Appeals confirms that the fair value standard in divorce cases precludes application of any discount, either for lack of marketability or lack of control, for any closely held company, even highly restricted shares in family owned b ...
Date of Valuation for Divorce Not as Critical as Its ‘Truth’
Court of Appeals confirms trial court’s reliance on a valuation performed closer to date of petition (rather than date of decree), finding a variety of factors in support, including spouse’s dissipation of funds from the sole proprietorship.
Hayden v. Pittendrigh
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.
Iacampo v. Oliver-Iacampo
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 ...
Grow v. Grow
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.
In re the Marriage of Hoker
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.
Barth v. Barth
Appellate court affirms “sizeable” discounts for real estate development companies, including ones for bulk sale and carrying costs.
Burton v. Mooneyham
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 ...
Value of Closely Held Business in Divorce Relies Solely on Buy-Sell
Appellate court rejects calculation of value of closely held business under buy-sell agreement that did use proper valuation date or standard of value (FMV).
Buy-Sell Agreements Receive Varying Consideration in Divorce: In re Marriage of Restaino
Court of Appeals reverses the trial court’s finding that pay-outs under a law firm dissolution agreement represented income to the husband rather than his equity share in a community asset, to which the wife could claim a portion.
Buy-Sell Agreements Receive Varying Consideration in Divorce: In re Marriage of Kingery
In valuing the husband’s 25% interest in a law firm, the trial court erroneously accepted a valuation that included a “purchase acquisition cost” or “goodwill cost” derived from a buy-out of a former partner.
Buy-Sell Agreements Receive Varying Consideration in Divorce: In re Marriage of Baker
Court of Appeals affirms finding that buy-sell agreement limits spouse’s interest in medical clinic to $1,000.