In re Hebert
In this New Hampshire divorce appeal, the husband appealed the trial court’s property division, the awarding of 13 years of alimony, awarding of 100% of the proceeds of the sale of residences, and awarding 50% of the value of the husband’s business and the real estate where the business was located. The Supreme Court of New Hampshire affirmed in part and remanded in part.
New Hampshire Supreme Court Affirms in Part and Vacates in Part and Remands Divorce Trial Court—Husband Fails to Provide Support for Expenses
In this New Hampshire divorce appeal, the husband appealed the trial court’s property division, the awarding of 13 years of alimony, awarding of 100% of the proceeds of the sale of residences, and awarding 50% of the value of the husband’s business and the real estate where the business was located. The Supreme Court of New Hampshire affirmed in part and remanded in part.
Cronan v. Cronan
This case concerned an appeal of a family court magistrate’s decision as to the value of marital assets and the distribution thereof and denial of alimony to the wife. The plaintiff, the husband, is a physician shareholder in a medical imaging practice. The practice had a shareholder agreement that provided for the price to buy into and sell out of the practice. The wife’s expert determined the value of the husband’s shares under the fair market value standard but the trial court and supreme court went with the agreement value.
Rhode Island Supreme Court Affirms Value of Interest in Medical Practice Per Shareholder Agreement and Equitable Distribution of Assets
This case concerned an appeal of a family court magistrate’s decision as to the value of marital assets and the distribution thereof and denial of alimony to the wife. The plaintiff, the husband, is a physician shareholder in a medical imaging practice. The practice had a shareholder agreement that provided for the price to buy into and sell out of the practice. The wife’s expert determined the value of the husband’s shares under the fair market value standard but the trial court and supreme court went with the agreement value.
Barnes v. Barnes
The trial for this divorce case was extended almost eight months because the parties had assured the court it would be a three-day trial and it took four days. The fourth day was almost eight months after the end of the third day of trial. As a result, the husband argued that the value of his business should have been updated and consideration given to the effect of splitting the business’s real estate from the operations of the business. The appellate court noted that this issue had not been raised at trial and was, therefore, not appealable. Other issues not related to the business were issues for the appellate court.
Tennessee Appeals Court Affirms Trial Court Valuation and Trial Court’s Skepticism of Husband’s ‘Projections’
The trial for this divorce case was extended almost eight months because the parties had assured the court it would be a three-day trial and it took four days. The fourth day was almost eight months after the end of the third day of trial. As a result, the husband argued that the value of his business should have been updated and consideration given to the effect of splitting the business’s real estate from the operations of the business. The appellate court noted that this issue had not been raised at trial and was, therefore, not appealable. Other issues not related to the business were issues for the appellate court.
Clampitt v. Clampitt
The husband appealed the family court’s valuation of the family business. In a brief opinion, the court of appeals (South Carolina) affirmed the family court’s value because the change in value during the litigation was attributable to the husband, the family court accounted for personal goodwill, and the valuation was within the range of evidence presented.
South Carolina Appeals Court Affirms Value of Family Business—Within Evidence Presented
The husband appealed the family court’s valuation of the family business. In a brief opinion, the court of appeals (South Carolina) affirmed the family court’s value because the change in value during the litigation was attributable to the husband, the family court accounted for personal goodwill, and the valuation was within the range of evidence presented.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
Utah Appellate Court Excludes Personal Goodwill, Disallows Reduction for Taxes on Hypothetical Sale
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.
Chase v. Chase
On appeal, the husband asked the court to review whether the wife needed alimony given the assets she otherwise received in the equitable distribution and her earning capacity as a pharmacist, whether an award of rehabilitative alimony and alimony in futuro by the trial court was appropriate, and whether the trial court’s valuation of the husband’s medical practice was in error. The appellate court affirmed the trial court in all aspects reviewed and did not award legal fees to either party.
Tennessee Appeals Court Affirms Trial Court Decision on Spousal Support and on the Value of Husband’s Medical Practice
On appeal, the husband asked the court to review whether the wife needed alimony given the assets she otherwise received in the equitable distribution and her earning capacity as a pharmacist, whether an award of rehabilitative alimony and alimony in futuro by the trial court was appropriate, and whether the trial court’s valuation of the husband’s medical practice was in error. The appellate court affirmed the trial court in all aspects reviewed and did not award legal fees to either party.
Valuing a minority interest with no information on the subject company
In a Maryland divorce case, neither valuation expert had any documents or financial information from the husband’s ambulatory surgical center (ASC) in which he owned a small interest.
Goicochea v. Goicochea
This case was an appeal from a trial court’s various decisions relating to a divorce matter. Among other issues appealed, the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s determination of the value of the husband’s small minority interest (0.829301%) in an ambulatory surgery center. The wife’s expert used a prior transaction of a 1.1125% in the center to determine the husband’s value.
Maryland Court Affirms the Value of Husband’s Minority Interest in an Ambulatory Surgery Center
This case was an appeal from a trial court’s various decisions relating to a divorce matter. Among other issues appealed, the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s determination of the value of the husband’s small minority interest (0.829301%) in an ambulatory surgery center. The wife’s expert used a prior transaction of a 1.1125% in the center to determine the husband’s value.
Simons v. Simons
The Nebraska Supreme Court allowed a fair value determination by the wife’s expert as the appropriate value for a divorce case and did not include any discounts that might apply in a fair market value determination. Much of the opinion dealt with the issue of a constructive trust, which the trial court determined results in a 50% ownership by the wife in the family business.
Nebraska Supreme Court Allows Fair Value Determination for Family-Owned Business and Does Not Allow Discounts
The Nebraska Supreme Court allowed a fair value determination by the wife’s expert as the appropriate value for a divorce case and did not include any discounts that might apply in a fair market value determination. Much of the opinion dealt with the issue of a constructive trust, which the trial court determined results in a 50% ownership by the wife in the family business.
District Court Affirms Tax Court’s Decision That Deferred Payments to Spouse Are Not Deductible Alimony Payments
The district court in this appeal from the Tax Court affirmed the Tax Court’s decision that deferred payments the husband made to the wife were not deductible alimony payments and thus not taxable to the wife.
Redleaf v. Comm’r
The district court in this appeal from the Tax Court affirmed the Tax Court’s decision that deferred payments the husband made to the wife were not deductible alimony payments and thus not taxable to the wife.
Hollis v. Hollis
One of the main issues in this appeal was how to classify the husband’s “book of business,” i.e., his client relationships, assets under management, and related income. The husband was a financial advisor for UBS. The wife contended the book of business had value that constituted a marital asset. The husband pointed out that UBS now took the position that a financial advisor who left the company cannot take any information with him or her. The court also noted that “deferred cash agreements” were actually bonuses that were marital assets. The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s decision to exclude the book of business from marital assets. The court also affirmed the trial court decision on payment of alimony to the wife “in futuro.”