Wife foregoes valuation expert to her dismay
Here’s another case where one party in a divorce matter does not offer a competing valuation and then appeals the outcome.
Marouk v. Marouk
The wife argued that the husband’s business valuation expert was not credible or reliable even though she was Accredited in Business Valuation (ABV) and used methods of business valuation common to appraisers. However, the wife did not provide an expert, and the trial court refused to speculate on the value and adopted the value of the husband’s expert. The appellate court found that appropriate and not an abuse of discretion.
Arizona Appellate Court Affirms Business Value When Only One Party Submits a Valuation
The wife argued that the husband’s business valuation expert was not credible or reliable even though she was Accredited in Business Valuation (ABV) and used methods of business valuation common to appraisers. However, the wife did not provide an expert, and the trial court refused to speculate on the value and adopted the value of the husband’s expert. The appellate court found that appropriate and not an abuse of discretion.
Skoglund v. Barbour
While the conclusion to this case was still in doubt due to the appellate court remanding the case to determine whether a gift of a business interest in a community property business was harmful to the community estate, this case was a clear example of lack of documentation as to ownership of a business and later transactions relating to the business.
The Court of Appeals (Arizona) Remands to the Lower Court to Determine Whether Husband Breached His Fiduciary Duty to Wife
While the conclusion to this case was still in doubt due to the appellate court remanding the case to determine whether a gift of a business interest in a community property business was harmful to the community estate, this case was a clear example of lack of documentation as to ownership of a business and later transactions relating to the business.
Neutral valuer does what he can with limited info
In a California divorce case, a court-appointed valuation expert was caught in the middle of a squabbling couple who didn’t provide enough information to value all the marital assets, including business interests.
In re Hembree
In this appeal of a denied motion by the wife to set aside a marital settlement order, the appellate court affirmed the trial court. The wife claimed that the husband did not disclose a number of marital assets and misrepresented the values of certain marital assets. The trial court appointed its own expert for valuation of assets. The expert was unable to value a number of the assets for lack of information including a lack of proof of existence of some alleged assets.
Appellate Court (California) Affirms Denial of Wife’s Motion Claiming Missing Assets and Undervalued Assets
In this appeal of a denied motion by the wife to set aside a marital settlement order, the appellate court affirmed the trial court. The wife claimed that the husband did not disclose a number of marital assets and misrepresented the values of certain marital assets. The trial court appointed its own expert for valuation of assets. The expert was unable to value a number of the assets for lack of information including a lack of proof of existence of some alleged assets.
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.
‘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.
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.
More courts KO DLOM when business won’t be sold
Keep an eye out for courts in more states deciding to eliminate a discount for lack of marketability (DLOM) depending on whether the business will be sold.
Lamm v. Preston
This was a divorce case with a complex set of issues regarding the marital estate and the businesses of the parties. This Supreme Court of Idaho case and opinion related to one of the businesses, Black Sage Acquisition LLC, in which the couple owned 25%. The magistrate court determined the value of Black Sage Acquisition as $163,373 based on fair market value. The remaining value was determined to be personal goodwill. The Supreme Court (Idaho) affirmed the decision of the district court, which upheld the magistrate court.
Idaho Supreme Court Affirms Magistrate Judge’s Opinion Regarding Personal Goodwill
This was a divorce case with a complex set of issues regarding the marital estate and the businesses of the parties. This Supreme Court of Idaho case and opinion related to one of the businesses, Black Sage Acquisition LLC, in which the couple owned 25%. The magistrate court determined the value of Black Sage Acquisition as $163,373 based on fair market value. The remaining value was determined to be personal goodwill. The Supreme Court (Idaho) affirmed the decision of the district court, which upheld the magistrate court.
Thomasee v. Thomasee
The Louisiana appellate court affirmed the decision of the trial court in a divorce case that included the value of the husband’s business in the marital estate as community property. The husband argued that the FEMA adjuster business was a professional business and that the profits were all goodwill and, therefore, not included in the estate. The wife argued that the business was not a professional business and had value other than just the personal goodwill of the husband. The value was includable as community property, and any subsequent income was half hers. The trial court sided with the wife, and the appeals court affirmed.
Louisiana Appeals Court Affirms Husband’s Business Is Not a Professional Business and Has Value Other Than Personal Goodwill
The Louisiana appellate court affirmed the decision of the trial court in a divorce case that included the value of the husband’s business in the marital estate as community property. The husband argued that the FEMA adjuster business was a professional business and that the profits were all goodwill and, therefore, not included in the estate. The wife argued that the business was not a professional business and had value other than just the personal goodwill of the husband. The value was includable as community property, and any subsequent income was half hers. The trial court sided with the wife, and the appeals court affirmed.
Fair v. Fair
The primary issue in this appeal was the value of Surgical Imaging Specialists Inc. (SIS), a subchapter S corporation that the parties formed in 2002. Stephan Fair, the husband, was the sole registered shareholder of SIS. Darlene Fair, the wife, was listed on all tax returns as an equal owner. The trial court awarded all community property interest to the husband and eliminated 25% of SIS’ goodwill as personal goodwill. On appeal, the husband contended that the trial court undervalued the personal goodwill discount and failed to apply a discount for lack of marketability. The husband also appealed the separate property award of an IRA account and a reimbursement to the wife for additional salary payments made by SIS to the husband. The court of appeal affirmed the trial court value of SIS, remanded the issue of IRA gains, and affirmed the reimbursement for additional salary payments.
Appellate Court Rules on the Value of the Marital Business as to Personal Goodwill, Minority, Liquidity, and Marketability Discounts
The primary issue in this appeal was the value of Surgical Imaging Specialists Inc. (SIS), a subchapter S corporation that the parties formed in 2002. Stephan Fair, the husband, was the sole registered shareholder of SIS. Darlene Fair, the wife, was listed on all tax returns as an equal owner. The trial court awarded all community property interest to the husband and eliminated 25% of SIS’ goodwill as personal goodwill. On appeal, the husband contended that the trial court undervalued the personal goodwill discount and failed to apply a discount for lack of marketability. The husband also appealed the separate property award of an IRA account and a reimbursement to the wife for additional salary payments made by SIS to the husband. The court of appeal affirmed the trial court value of SIS, remanded the issue of IRA gains, and affirmed the reimbursement for additional salary payments.
Two cases on trapped-in gains tax—with opposite outcomes
In a California divorce case we recently covered, an appeals court disallowed a discount for possible future taxes because the taxes were neither immediate nor specific.
Appeals court OKs one discount, KOs another in divorce matter
In a California divorce matter, the husband’s expert applied two discounts to the valuation of the wife’s one-half interest in his business: one discount for possible future taxes and one for a discount for lack of marketability (DLOM).
Harvey v. Harvey (In re Michael S.)
In this divorce case, on appeal, the California appellate court rejected a discount for taxes not immediate and specific and allowed a DLOM regarding the value of the wife’s one-half interest in the jointly owned business. The court also determined that “the [trial] court impliedly made the factual findings necessary to support its ruling regarding Cynthia’s breach of fiduciary duty claim.” Finally, the appeals court determined that the trial court had the authority to set its own terms for payment of the equalization amount to the wife.
In a Divorce Case, the California Court of Appeal Rejects Discount for Taxes Not Immediate and Specific But Allows a DLOM
In this divorce case, on appeal, the California appellate court rejected a discount for taxes not immediate and specific and allowed a DLOM regarding the value of the wife’s one-half interest in the jointly owned business. The court also determined that “the [trial] court impliedly made the factual findings necessary to support its ruling regarding Cynthia’s breach of fiduciary duty claim.” Finally, the appeals court determined that the trial court had the authority to set its own terms for payment of the equalization amount to the wife.