Court excludes valuation expert by mistake
In an Ohio divorce matter, an appellate court has remanded a case back to the trial court because it “abused its discretion” when it excluded a valuation expert’s testimony and report.
Miller v. Miller
In this Ohio divorce case, the trial court did not consider a valuation report of a competent expert the husband submitted. As such, “the trial court erred by sustaining an objection which appellant never made and by rendering judgment without considering all the evidence presented.” The trial court also erred by failing to reserve jurisdiction to modify the spousal maintenance award and not explaining why it refused to do so. The Appellate Court remanded on both of the above issues.
Ohio Trial Court Fails to Consider Expert Testimony—Appellate Court Remands
In this Ohio divorce case, the trial court did not consider a valuation report of a competent expert the husband submitted. As such, “the trial court erred by sustaining an objection which appellant never made and by rendering judgment without considering all the evidence presented.” The trial court also erred by failing to reserve jurisdiction to modify the spousal maintenance award and not explaining why it refused to do so. The Appellate Court remanded on both of the above issues.
Demenno v. Demenno
The Alaska Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court in determining the value of active appreciation and affirmed that the property in question remained the husband’s separate property and did not transmute to the marital estate.
Supreme Court (Alaska) Affirms Trial Court Calculation of Active Appreciation
The Alaska Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court in determining the value of active appreciation and affirmed that the property in question remained the husband’s separate property and did not transmute to the marital estate.
Smith v. Smith
In this divorce case appeal, the appeals court remanded to the Chancery Court the issue of separate versus marital property. The appellate court determined that one of the husband’s businesses was marital property and not separate property as the Chancery Court decided. It remanded that portion of the Chancery decision with instructions to change the ruling and determine a value for the now marital property business—but without any goodwill.
Appellate Court (Mississippi) Affirms That Goodwill Is Not a Marital Asset
In this divorce case appeal, the appeals court remanded to the Chancery Court the issue of separate versus marital property. The appellate court determined that one of the husband’s businesses was marital property and not separate property as the Chancery Court decided. It remanded that portion of the Chancery decision with instructions to change the ruling and determine a value for the now marital property business—but without any goodwill.
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.
Cronan v. Cronan
This case concerned an appeal of a family court magistrate’s decision as to the value of marital assets and the distribution thereof and denial of alimony to the wife. The plaintiff, the husband, is a physician shareholder in a medical imaging practice. The practice had a shareholder agreement that provided for the price to buy into and sell out of the practice. The wife’s expert determined the value of the husband’s shares under the fair market value standard but the trial court and supreme court went with the agreement value.
Rhode Island Supreme Court Affirms Value of Interest in Medical Practice Per Shareholder Agreement and Equitable Distribution of Assets
This case concerned an appeal of a family court magistrate’s decision as to the value of marital assets and the distribution thereof and denial of alimony to the wife. The plaintiff, the husband, is a physician shareholder in a medical imaging practice. The practice had a shareholder agreement that provided for the price to buy into and sell out of the practice. The wife’s expert determined the value of the husband’s shares under the fair market value standard but the trial court and supreme court went with the agreement value.
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.
B.M. v. R.C.
The husband did not engage a valuation of his business, but the wife did. Her valuation expert arrived at a range of values, explaining that he lacked some information and that the information he did have regarding the financial status of the business did not reconcile. As a result, he set a range of values and determined that a range was the most appropriate way to determine the value. The trial court took an average of the range to determine the value for purposes of the marital estate. The supreme court affirmed the lower court decision to average the values.
The Supreme Court of Alaska Affirms the Use of a Range of Value to Determine the Value of a Business
The husband did not engage a valuation of his business, but the wife did. Her valuation expert arrived at a range of values, explaining that he lacked some information and that the information he did have regarding the financial status of the business did not reconcile. As a result, he set a range of values and determined that a range was the most appropriate way to determine the value. The trial court took an average of the range to determine the value for purposes of the marital estate. The supreme court affirmed the lower court decision to average the values.
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.
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.”
Are you up on the recent BV-related court cases?
One of the highlights of the BVR webinar schedule is the regular update on valuation-related court cases.
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.
Faulty information slices personal goodwill in two
In a Utah divorce case, both the joint valuation expert and the expert the husband engaged agreed to the amount of personal goodwill in the husband’s consulting business.
BV News and Trends May 2023
A monthly roundup of key developments of interest to business valuation experts.