Bergquist v. Bergquist
The appellate court (Indiana) found that the circuit court abused its discretion when valuing the wife’s business by not determining a value based on there being no evidence that would support such a value. The appellate court remanded the issue of the value of the business for determination based on evidence that would support it.
Indiana Appellate Court Remands to Revalue Wife’s Business Supported by the Evidence
The appellate court (Indiana) found that the circuit court abused its discretion when valuing the wife’s business by not determining a value based on there being no evidence that would support such a value. The appellate court remanded the issue of the value of the business for determination based on evidence that would support it.
Lymburner v. Axhelm
In a divorce case in Alaska, the Supreme Court determined that the wife’s expert’s valuation was superior to the husband’s expert’s valuation. Thus, the value of the business was not at issue on a remand. What was at issue was whether some or all of the businesses were separate property rather than marital property as the lower court ruled.
Alaska Supreme Court Remands for Determination of Marital Property But Affirms Lower Court’s Acceptance of Wife’s Business Value
In a divorce case in Alaska, the Supreme Court determined that the wife’s expert’s valuation was superior to the husband’s expert’s valuation. Thus, the value of the business was not at issue on a remand. What was at issue was whether some or all of the businesses were separate property rather than marital property as the lower court ruled.
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.
Lieberman-Massoni v. Massoni
The trial court in this New York divorce awarded the value of the husband’s class B units in lieu of awarding a portion of the actual units to the wife and also barred the wife from any distributions on those units occurring after the valuation date.
New York Appellate Court Affirms Award of Value of Husband’s Class B Units in Lieu of Actual Distribution of Share of Units
The trial court in this New York divorce awarded the value of the husband’s class B units in lieu of awarding a portion of the actual units to the wife and also barred the wife from any distributions on those units occurring after the valuation date.
Maher v. Cmejrek
The wife appealed the trial court’s decisions as to the values of the husband’s interests in his various medical practices and clinics and challenged the trial court’s determination of the husband’s income for support purposes. The appellate court affirmed the values of the medical practices and clinics and remanded the determination of income for support purposes for recalculation.
Indiana Appellate Court Affirms Valuation of Medical Practice Interests of Husband but Remands for Recalculation of Husband’s Income for Child Support
The wife appealed the trial court’s decisions as to the values of the husband’s interests in his various medical practices and clinics and challenged the trial court’s determination of the husband’s income for support purposes. The appellate court affirmed the values of the medical practices and clinics and remanded the determination of income for support purposes for recalculation.
Mikalacki v. Rubezic
In this Arizona marital dissolution case, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s acceptance of a calculation of value to determine the value of a couple’s law practice, awarded to the husband as part of the equitable distribution. Other matters not related to valuation issues were part of the appellate decision.
Arizona Appeals Court Affirms Trial Court’s Acceptance of a Calculation of Value
In this Arizona marital dissolution case, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s acceptance of a calculation of value to determine the value of a couple’s law practice, awarded to the husband as part of the equitable distribution. Other matters not related to valuation issues were part of the appellate decision.
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.”
The Tennessee Appeals Court Affirms the Trial Court’s Decision to Exclude From the Marital Estate Financial Advisor the Husband’s ‘Book of Business’
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.”
King v. King
In this Maryland divorce case, the Court of Special Appeals affirmed the trial court on all appealed issues including marital property determinations; monetary award to the wife; determination of incomes of the husband and wife; and determinations of alimony, child support, and related expenses. The Court of Special Appeals also affirmed that the husband’s business was not a gift and was marital property, and it determined the value of the business as the wife’s expert presented. Both parties were forensic accountants.
Maryland Appellate Court Affirms Trial Court on Value of Husband’s Business as Well as Several Other Divorce-Related Issues
In this Maryland divorce case, the Court of Special Appeals affirmed the trial court on all appealed issues including marital property determinations; monetary award to the wife; determination of incomes of the husband and wife; and determinations of alimony, child support, and related expenses. The Court of Special Appeals also affirmed that the husband’s business was not a gift and was marital property, and it determined the value of the business as the wife’s expert presented. Both parties were forensic accountants.
Parties’ agreement complicates spousal support calculation in S corp context
Instead of facilitating a resolution, a separation agreement between the divorcing spouses led to a protracted lawsuit.
Marshall v. Marshall (II)
On second review, appeals court says trial court satisfied task on remand; latter’s use of reasonable compensation calculation to establish income for alimony and child support purposes was in the spirit of parties’ agreement and was based on “entirely credible” testimony by husband’s BV expert.
Courts Agree Reasonable Compensation Is Sound Method for Calculating Spousal Support in S Corp Context
On second review, appeals court says trial court satisfied task on remand; latter’s use of reasonable compensation calculation to establish income for alimony and child support purposes was in the spirit of parties’ agreement and was based on “entirely credible” testimony by husband’s BV expert.
Court Distinguishes Between Goodwill and Trail Income in Solo Practice Valuation
Professional practice, sole proprietorship, goodwill, valuation, marital property, equitable distribution, valuation method, income, child support, double counting ...
Trail income is different from personal goodwill, Tennessee court clarifies
Tennessee does not consider personal goodwill in a solo proprietorship a marital asset. But what about trail income, the money a financial planner makes from managing his or her clients’ funds and portfolios? In Fuller v. Fuller, the owner-spouse argued the goodwill analysis applied to the treatment of trail income as well. The Tennessee Court of Appeals recently disagreed.
Fuller v. Fuller
Appeals court says trail income generated by solo financial planning practice is different from professional goodwill; it can be sold separately or assigned, and there exists a formula for valuing it; trial court was right to consider it a marital asset.
Court Distinguishes Between Goodwill and Trail Income in Solo Practice Valuation
Appeals court says trail income generated by solo financial planning practice is different from professional goodwill; it can be sold separately or assigned, and there exists a formula for valuing it; trial court was right to consider it a marital asset.
Court Rejects Flat Prohibition Against Double Dipping
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.