Another case of lopsided valuation experts
A Minnesota divorce case is an example of why judges can get the perception that valuation experts are hired guns.
In re Marriage of Gill
The husband appealed the circuit court’s decision regarding his divorce decree and an order denying his motion to reconsider issues regarding the parties’ property division. He argued the circuit court erred in allocating less than half of the parties’ tax liability to the wife. He also argued the circuit court erred in denying his motion to reopen evidence regarding the impact of COVID-19 on his salon business. The appellate court rejected his arguments and affirmed the circuit court.
Appellate Court (Wisconsin) Affirms Trial Court Allocation of Tax Liability and Business Value in Divorce
The husband appealed the circuit court’s decision regarding his divorce decree and an order denying his motion to reconsider issues regarding the parties’ property division. He argued the circuit court erred in allocating less than half of the parties’ tax liability to the wife. He also argued the circuit court erred in denying his motion to reopen evidence regarding the impact of COVID-19 on his salon business. The appellate court rejected his arguments and affirmed the circuit court.
Gore v. Gore
The key element in the appeal of this divorce case revolved around the valuation of the wife’s business, selling dietary supplements online. The wife failed to produce in a timely manner the documents the husband requested. She also failed to timely declare an expert who could testify as to the value of her business. “Wife appealed the circuit court’s award of monetary sanctions and the court’s exclusion of her and her expert’s testimony regarding her company’s valuation, as well as her attempts to testify regarding the value of her business. Husband cross-appealed the court’s distribution of marital property and the resultant monetary award.”
Appellate Court (Maryland) Affirms Trial Court’s Decision to Exclude Testimony of Wife’s Expert
The key element in the appeal of this divorce case revolved around the valuation of the wife’s business, selling dietary supplements online. The wife failed to produce in a timely manner the documents the husband requested. She also failed to timely declare an expert who could testify as to the value of her business. “Wife appealed the circuit court’s award of monetary sanctions and the court’s exclusion of her and her expert’s testimony regarding her company’s valuation, as well as her attempts to testify regarding the value of her business. Husband cross-appealed the court’s distribution of marital property and the resultant monetary award.”
Tennebaum v. Deshpande
In this Minnesota appeal of a marital dissolution decree, the district court received valuations from experts representing both parties and determined the value of the husband’s business interest in an asset management company. The husband appealed that value. The district court had considered matters of methodology as well as personal goodwill. The court of appeals found that the district court did not abuse its discretion and affirmed the judgment of the district court.
Valuation of Husband’s Business Interest Considers Credibility, Personal Goodwill, and Other Issues
In this Minnesota appeal of a marital dissolution decree, the district court received valuations from experts representing both parties and determined the value of the husband’s business interest in an asset management company. The husband appealed that value. The district court had considered matters of methodology as well as personal goodwill. The court of appeals found that the district court did not abuse its discretion and affirmed the judgment of the district court.
Divorce valuation is too little, too late
This is another in a rash of cases where one side either did not engage a valuation expert or did not use the expert to the best advantage.
Pereira method used for marital interest in construction firm
In a Nevada divorce case, the court considered whether the valuation of the marital portion of a separate property business should be calculated under the Pereira or Van Camp approach.
In re Marriage of Sommerville
This Iowa divorce case dealt with an appeal by the wife of the determined earnings of the husband and awards of child support and spousal maintenance. She also contended that the husband dissipated marital assets by failing to pay taxes and incurring penalties and interest. The appellate court determined that the trial court erred in determining the husband’s income and thus remanded for redetermination of child support and spousal support awards. The appellate court also affirmed the determination that the husband did not dissipate marital assets and affirmed the property division. Issues of evidence to determine income or earnings were also discussed.
Appellate Court Remands for New Determination of Husband’s Earnings, Affirms No Dissipation of Assets
This Iowa divorce case dealt with an appeal by the wife of the determined earnings of the husband and awards of child support and spousal maintenance. She also contended that the husband dissipated marital assets by failing to pay taxes and incurring penalties and interest. The appellate court determined that the trial court erred in determining the husband’s income and thus remanded for redetermination of child support and spousal support awards. The appellate court also affirmed the determination that the husband did not dissipate marital assets and affirmed the property division. Issues of evidence to determine income or earnings were also discussed.
‘Fawning terms’ help sink valuation
In an Iowa divorce case, the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s decision to reject the valuation of the husband’s expert for one of his three businesses.
2022 AAML/BVR Divorce Conference Training Pack
Chalasani v. Bollempalli
In this Arizona appeal of a divorce case, the husband physician did not engage a valuation expert and impeded the discovery of information relevant to the valuation to the wife’s valuation expert. The Appeals Court affirmed the trial court’s decision of value and its apportionment of 50% of the husband’s value in the practice, noting the lack of an expert by the husband and the failure of the husband’s practice to cooperate with the wife’s expert.
Appeals Court Affirms Value of Husband’s Medical Practice—He Fails to Provide Expert Testimony as to the Value
In this Arizona appeal of a divorce case, the husband physician did not engage a valuation expert and impeded the discovery of information relevant to the valuation to the wife’s valuation expert. The Appeals Court affirmed the trial court’s decision of value and its apportionment of 50% of the husband’s value in the practice, noting the lack of an expert by the husband and the failure of the husband’s practice to cooperate with the wife’s expert.
Pemberton v. Pemberton
In this complex Minnesota divorce case, the appellate court was taxed with multiple issues to decide. Among those issues was the value of the two businesses the husband owned in whole or part. The district court determined values based on the wife’s expert’s valuation report. The husband’s expert was not engaged to give a valuation opinion. The appellate court did not take the husband’s expert’s criticisms and comment on value into account. The appellate court also found no error in the district court dividing the combined 2020 tax liabilities for the parties in two and allocating half to each party, nor in its decision not to allocate the husband’s excess tax paid as a result of filing separately in 2018 and 2019.
Appellate Court Affirms Value of Businesses and Tax Liability Issue
In this complex Minnesota divorce case, the appellate court was taxed with multiple issues to decide. Among those issues was the value of the two businesses the husband owned in whole or part. The district court determined values based on the wife’s expert’s valuation report. The husband’s expert was not engaged to give a valuation opinion. The appellate court did not take the husband’s expert’s criticisms and comment on value into account. The appellate court also found no error in the district court dividing the combined 2020 tax liabilities for the parties in two and allocating half to each party, nor in its decision not to allocate the husband’s excess tax paid as a result of filing separately in 2018 and 2019.
Faulty information slices personal goodwill in two
In a Utah divorce case, both the joint valuation expert and the expert the husband engaged agreed to the amount of personal goodwill in the husband’s consulting business.
Husband vs. valuation expert, court splits the difference
In an Iowa divorce case, the wife engaged a CPA and valuation analyst to value the husband’s construction company, and he concluded a value of $1,020,597.
In re Marriage of Marasco
This case was an appeal of an Iowa marital dissolution decree. The husband on appeal argued the value the wife’s expert determined was too high and should not have been relied on. The appellate court noted that part of the reason the trial court used the wife’s expert’s appraisal was that the business was able to obtain a $10 million loan during the time of the valuation. Additionally, the appellate court affirmed that the entire value of the business was community property.
Iowa Court of Appeals Affirms Value of Husband’s Business Determined by Wife’s Expert and Includes Total Value as Marital Property
This case was an appeal of an Iowa marital dissolution decree. The husband on appeal argued the value the wife’s expert determined was too high and should not have been relied on. The appellate court noted that part of the reason the trial court used the wife’s expert’s appraisal was that the business was able to obtain a $10 million loan during the time of the valuation. Additionally, the appellate court affirmed that the entire value of the business was community property.
Mamone v. Mamone
The Nevada appellate court affirmed the trial court’s use of the Pereira method of determining the value of separate property included in the total value of the husband’s business. It was clear that the value increase in the business during the marriage was due in large part to the efforts of the husband. The “excess value” of the business over the separate property value was included in the community property. The appellate court also affirmed the ruling of the trial court that no community expenses incurred during the marriage were paid from the separate property of the husband and the husband was, therefore, not entitled to any reimbursement of those community expenses.
Nevada Appellate Court Affirms Value of Husband’s Business and His Separate Property Value in the Business
The Nevada appellate court affirmed the trial court’s use of the Pereira method of determining the value of separate property included in the total value of the husband’s business. It was clear that the value increase in the business during the marriage was due in large part to the efforts of the husband. The “excess value” of the business over the separate property value was included in the community property. The appellate court also affirmed the ruling of the trial court that no community expenses incurred during the marriage were paid from the separate property of the husband and the husband was, therefore, not entitled to any reimbursement of those community expenses.
Reasonable comp at center of dental practice dispute
In a Massachusetts divorce case, the wife argued that the normalization adjustments to her salary from her dental practice were based on unreliable data.
Rothwell v. Rothwell
In an appeal of a Utah divorce case, the court affirmed the district court’s determination of value of the husband’s businesses. The district court allowed the exclusion of personal goodwill (in accordance with Utah case law Sorensen v. Sorensen) but did not allow the deduction of estimated tax to be paid on a hypothetical sale of the business at some future date.