Expand the following panels for additional search options.

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.”

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.”

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.

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.

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.

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.

Gallo v. Gallo

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.

Court Deems Treatment of S Corp Undistributed Income ‘Problematic’

Court rejects expert’s “excess working capital” analysis to determine income for child support purposes saying it conflicts with state statute’s requirement to rely on historical practices when assessing legitimacy of undistributed earnings of an S corp.

Diez v. Davey

Court rejects expert’s “excess working capital” analysis to determine income for child support purposes saying it conflicts with state statute’s requirement to rely on historical practices when assessing legitimacy of undistributed earnings of an S corp.

Courts Agree Reasonable Compensation Is Sound Method for Calculating Spousal Support in S Corp Context

Appeals court says parties’ agreement is ambiguous as to whether distributions related to husband’s ownership in S corp. are includable in alimony and child support calculation; on remand, trial court must determine what income parties meant when specifying use of pretax income from employment.

Marshall v. Marshall (I)

Appeals court says parties’ agreement is ambiguous as to whether distributions related to husband’s ownership in S corp. are includable in alimony and child support calculation; on remand, trial court must determine what income parties meant when specifying use of pretax income from employment.

19 results