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.
MAXISIQ, Inc. v. Hurysh
This was a contract case where the court determined that the member had a right to examine books and records as a litigant (as opposed to as a member). The problem, however, was that the plaintiff ignored the terms of the contract that required a “good faith” determination of value, which necessarily established a basis for challenge. An appraisal allegedly made in “good faith” could still be shot through with error, suggesting dubious good faith. That would obviously be intolerable. In a contract case, the court was often called upon to determine whether the terms were followed as opposed to deciding a particular issue of law.
U.S. District Court Denies Summary Judgment as to the Value of a Member’s Interest
This was a contract case where the court determined that the member had a right to examine books and records as a litigant (as opposed to as a member). The problem, however, was that the plaintiff ignored the terms of the contract that required a “good faith” determination of value, which necessarily established a basis for challenge. An appraisal allegedly made in “good faith” could still be shot through with error, suggesting dubious good faith. That would obviously be intolerable. In a contract case, the court was often called upon to determine whether the terms were followed as opposed to deciding a particular issue of law.
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.
Blount v. Blount
The appellant wife in this case argued that the trial court failed to divide the marital estate equitably because it did not make an explicit finding of fact as to the valuation of the business that it awarded solely to her but instead only made a finding as to the “excess cash” found in the business. The appellate court affirmed the trial court, explaining that a specific finding of value was not required. (Editor’s note: According to a well-known family law attorney, this likely would be reversible error if specific findings were requested and should be even if not ...
Georgia Appellate Court Affirms Order Allocating Excess Cash From Business to Husband but Fails to Assign Value to the Business
The appellant wife in this case argued that the trial court failed to divide the marital estate equitably because it did not make an explicit finding of fact as to the valuation of the business that it awarded solely to her but instead only made a finding as to the “excess cash” found in the business. The appellate court affirmed the trial court, explaining that a specific finding of value was not required. (Editor’s note: According to a well-known family law attorney, this likely would be reversible error if specific findings were requested and should be even if not ...
Expert partially excluded in damages case
In Nevada, an expert was to testify in the Las Vegas Sun’s antitrust lawsuit against the Las Vegas Review-Journal.
Cammenga v. Cammenga
In this Michigan divorce action, the court of appeals remanded for a second time for the trial court to measure the husband’s tax loss carryforward in an appropriate manner, including an option to value the loss carryforward annually.
Appellate Court (Michigan) Orders a Second Remand to Value a Tax Loss Carryforward Correctly
In this Michigan divorce action, the court of appeals remanded for a second time for the trial court to measure the husband’s tax loss carryforward in an appropriate manner, including an option to value the loss carryforward annually.
New case spotlights the work product doctrine
The work product doctrine, which is incorporated into federal discovery Rule 26(b)(3)(A), protects an attorney’s notes, memos, and any writing prepared “in anticipation of litigation” from discovery by the opposing party.
Las Vegas Sun, Inc. v. Adelson
In this dispute between media companies, the court here ruled on some discovery issues and allowed the testimony of the defendant’s expert in part. Testimony related to methodology was allowed for a jury to decide, but the expert was not allowed to testify on any interpretation of a 2005 joint operating agreement or opine on the plaintiff’s intent to degrade the quality of the printed newspaper. These were legal conclusions or opinions as to the plaintiff’s state of mind.
Federal District Court (Nevada) Partially Excludes Expert’s Testimony and Also Limits Discovery in Damages Case
In this dispute between media companies, the court here ruled on some discovery issues and allowed the testimony of the defendant’s expert in part. Testimony related to methodology was allowed for a jury to decide, but the expert was not allowed to testify on any interpretation of a 2005 joint operating agreement or opine on the plaintiff’s intent to degrade the quality of the printed newspaper. These were legal conclusions or opinions as to the plaintiff’s state of mind.
Boston Ret. Sys. v. Uber Techs., Inc.
The plaintiffs filed a motion to compel production of 28 unredacted documents PricewaterhouseCoopers produced. The defendant, Uber Technologies Inc., asserted that the work product doctrine shielded the redacted portions of the documents from discovery. The court agreed and denied the plaintiffs’ motion to compel.
U.S. District Court (California) Denies Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Documents in a Case Involving Uber
The plaintiffs filed a motion to compel production of 28 unredacted documents PricewaterhouseCoopers produced. The defendant, Uber Technologies Inc., asserted that the work product doctrine shielded the redacted portions of the documents from discovery. The court agreed and denied the plaintiffs’ motion to compel.
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.
Lazar v. Mor
The plaintiffs in this business dispute submitted motions to amend their complaint, alleging that the defendants contributed only a fraction of their required capital contributions. The result was, per the plaintiffs, that the defendants were overpaid, and the plaintiffs were shorted millions in distributions from the net proceeds of the sale of the properties.
Motion to Amend for Consideration of Variable Member Interests Granted
The plaintiffs in this business dispute submitted motions to amend their complaint, alleging that the defendants contributed only a fraction of their required capital contributions. The result was, per the plaintiffs, that the defendants were overpaid, and the plaintiffs were shorted millions in distributions from the net proceeds of the sale of the properties.
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.”
Court OKs including PPP loan in cash flows for CCF
In a Vermont divorce case, the valuation expert for the husband valued his business by excluding proceeds from a Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loan as a one-time windfall for purposes of a capitalized cash flow (CCF) analysis.
Griggs v. Griggs
The husband appealed this Vermont divorce case to the State Supreme Court inter alia to challenge the inclusion of PPP loan proceeds by the wife’s expert in determining the cash flows of the husband’s electrician services business for purposes of determining a value of the business using the capitalization of earnings method. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower trial court on this issue and allowed the PPP proceeds to be included in the cash flows.
Vermont Supreme Court Allows Inclusion of PPP Proceeds in Cap Earnings Cash Flow for Determination of Value
The husband appealed this Vermont divorce case to the State Supreme Court inter alia to challenge the inclusion of PPP loan proceeds by the wife’s expert in determining the cash flows of the husband’s electrician services business for purposes of determining a value of the business using the capitalization of earnings method. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower trial court on this issue and allowed the PPP proceeds to be included in the cash flows.
O’Mahony v. Whiston
In a case of disputes among the owners of an Irish soccer bar in New York City, the court awarded economic damages and punitive damages after the controlling owners took proceeds of a lease buyout of the bar’s prior location to establish a new identical bar in a new location while cutting out the minority owners from the new bar. Using assets of the old corporation and thereby misappropriating a corporate opportunity of the old corporation, they started a new identical bar (including the name) in a new location in a corporation the control owners set up.