Calculation report used in court but had no rival
Most valuation analysts will not use a calculation report in court. But what if the other side has nothing?
In re Marriage of Remitz
In this divorce case, the Montana Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s use of the date of dissolution, May 2017, as the valuation date, reversed the trial court’s revaluation of the husband’s business, and reverted to the value determined to the trial date in 2014. The wife had no involvement in the business subsequent to the 2014 trial date.
In re Hussain
Both parties appealed this Illinois divorce case. While several issues were appealed, we focus on the value of the business and the determination of debts against the business. Since the trial court was not given any substantial evidence as to the value of the business, it determined the value on its own with limited information. The appellate court affirmed that value. Additionally, the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s disallowance of debts against the business.
Montana Supreme Court Holds Proper Date of Business Value Is the Date of Trial (2014), Not the Date of Dissolution (2017)
In this divorce case, the Montana Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s use of the date of dissolution, May 2017, as the valuation date, reversed the trial court’s revaluation of the husband’s business, and reverted to the value determined to the trial date in 2014. The wife had no involvement in the business subsequent to the 2014 trial date.
Illinois Appellate Court Affirms Value of Business Where the Parties Provided No Evidence
Both parties appealed this Illinois divorce case. While several issues were appealed, we focus on the value of the business and the determination of debts against the business. Since the trial court was not given any substantial evidence as to the value of the value of the business, it determined the value on its own with limited information. The appellate court affirmed that value. Additionally, the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s disallowance of debts against the business.
Active depreciation charged to business owner in divorce
In a South Carolina divorce case, the business owner (husband) appealed the family court’s decision on the valuation of the family business.
Untangling Assets and Uncovering the Truth: A Deep Dive into Divorce Financial Forensics
This webinar transcript provides a discussion of methodologies, tools, and techniques needed to untangle complex financials in the context of divorce proceedings ...
No do-over for valuation of business hit by COVID-19
In a Wisconsin marital dissolution case, COVID-19 negatively impacted the husband’s hair salon business, which had to shut down for a while.
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.
In re Marriage of Gill
The husband appealed the circuit court’s decision regarding his divorce decree and an order denying his motion to reconsider issues regarding the parties’ property division. He argued the circuit court erred in allocating less than half of the parties’ tax liability to the wife. He also argued the circuit court erred in denying his motion to reopen evidence regarding the impact of COVID-19 on his salon business. The appellate court rejected his arguments and affirmed the circuit court.
Appellate Court (Wisconsin) Affirms Trial Court Allocation of Tax Liability and Business Value in Divorce
The husband appealed the circuit court’s decision regarding his divorce decree and an order denying his motion to reconsider issues regarding the parties’ property division. He argued the circuit court erred in allocating less than half of the parties’ tax liability to the wife. He also argued the circuit court erred in denying his motion to reopen evidence regarding the impact of COVID-19 on his salon business. The appellate court rejected his arguments and affirmed the circuit court.
Low buyback value stings departing owners
Shareholder-employees should take a lesson from a recent case and take a fresh look at their buyout agreements—especially the part about the redemption value.
Divorce valuation is too little, too late
This is another in a rash of cases where one side either did not engage a valuation expert or did not use the expert to the best advantage.
Fair Value, Statutory Appraisals, Crypto, ESG, PE Deals, and More at the NYSSCPA BV Conference
As usual, the annual New York State Society of CPAs’ Business Valuation and Litigation Services Conference presented some very interesting and useful information. This article provides a recap of what was discussed.
BV News and Trends July 2023
A monthly roundup of key developments of interest to business valuation experts.
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.
Laurilliard v. McNamee Lochner, P.C.
The plaintiffs, minority shareholder employees in a law firm, brought suit against their firm for breaching their employment contracts. The court determined that the plaintiffs were at-will employees and that there was no breach of their agreements when they were terminated. The court also determined that the under-market-value payment under their repurchase agreements was allowable since they were at-will employees.
New York Court Allows Enforcement of Under-Market-Value Buy-Sell and Approves At-Will Termination of Shareholder-Employees
The plaintiffs, minority shareholder employees in a law firm, brought suit against their firm for breaching their employment contracts. The court determined that the plaintiffs were at-will employees and that there was no breach of their agreements when they were terminated. The court also determined that the under-market-value payment under their repurchase agreements was allowable since they were at-will employees.
Chalasani v. Bollempalli
In this Arizona appeal of a divorce case, the husband physician did not engage a valuation expert and impeded the discovery of information relevant to the valuation to the wife’s valuation expert. The Appeals Court affirmed the trial court’s decision of value and its apportionment of 50% of the husband’s value in the practice, noting the lack of an expert by the husband and the failure of the husband’s practice to cooperate with the wife’s expert.
Appeals Court Affirms Value of Husband’s Medical Practice—He Fails to Provide Expert Testimony as to the Value
In this Arizona appeal of a divorce case, the husband physician did not engage a valuation expert and impeded the discovery of information relevant to the valuation to the wife’s valuation expert. The Appeals Court affirmed the trial court’s decision of value and its apportionment of 50% of the husband’s value in the practice, noting the lack of an expert by the husband and the failure of the husband’s practice to cooperate with the wife’s expert.
Pemberton v. Pemberton
In this complex Minnesota divorce case, the appellate court was taxed with multiple issues to decide. Among those issues was the value of the two businesses the husband owned in whole or part. The district court determined values based on the wife’s expert’s valuation report. The husband’s expert was not engaged to give a valuation opinion. The appellate court did not take the husband’s expert’s criticisms and comment on value into account. The appellate court also found no error in the district court dividing the combined 2020 tax liabilities for the parties in two and allocating half to each party, nor in its decision not to allocate the husband’s excess tax paid as a result of filing separately in 2018 and 2019.
Appellate Court Affirms Value of Businesses and Tax Liability Issue
In this complex Minnesota divorce case, the appellate court was taxed with multiple issues to decide. Among those issues was the value of the two businesses the husband owned in whole or part. The district court determined values based on the wife’s expert’s valuation report. The husband’s expert was not engaged to give a valuation opinion. The appellate court did not take the husband’s expert’s criticisms and comment on value into account. The appellate court also found no error in the district court dividing the combined 2020 tax liabilities for the parties in two and allocating half to each party, nor in its decision not to allocate the husband’s excess tax paid as a result of filing separately in 2018 and 2019.
Husband vs. valuation expert, court splits the difference
In an Iowa divorce case, the wife engaged a CPA and valuation analyst to value the husband’s construction company, and he concluded a value of $1,020,597.