Husband shuns BV expert, loses case
In a Pennsylvania divorce case involving a restaurant, neither the husband nor the wife submitted formal business appraisals.
Snyder v. Snyder
In this Pennsylvania divorce matter, the appellate court accepted the wife’s valuation of the marital business using the “gross sales approach,” despite the husband’s objection that she was not qualified to determine the value. The trial court master recommended the wife’s value be accepted. However, the appellate court finds that the trial court double counted four business assets and remanded for a redetermination of the marital estate.
Court Affirms Acceptance of the Wife’s Gross Sales Valuation Method for the Marital Business, Remands for Double Counting of Business Assets
In this Pennsylvania divorce matter, the appellate court accepted the wife’s valuation of the marital business using the “gross sales approach,” despite the husband’s objection that she was not qualified to determine the value. The trial court master recommended the wife’s value be accepted. However, the appellate court finds that the trial court double counted four business assets and remanded for a redetermination of the marital estate.
Connecticut Supreme Court clarifies double-counting rule
In a recent decision, the Connecticut Supreme Court clarified this jurisdiction approach to double counting (or double dipping).
Oudheusden v. Oudheusden (II)
In this divorce case, the Connecticut Supreme Court, overturning the appellate court, clarifies that awarding the nonowner spouse part of the value of the owner spouse’s businesses and basing alimony on income generated from the businesses is not impermissible double counting (double dipping).
Connecticut Supreme Court Clarifies Double Counting Rule in Divorce Cases Involving Valuation of a Business and Determination of Alimony
In this divorce case, the Connecticut Supreme Court, overturning the appellate court, clarifies that awarding the nonowner spouse part of the value of the owner spouse’s businesses and basing alimony on income generated from the businesses is not impermissible double counting (double dipping).
Journal of Business Valuation 2018 Edition
From the CBV Institute ...
On double-dip issue, Ohio appeals court agrees with Gallo analysis
A recent Ohio appeals court decision expressly agreed with its sister court’s 2015 ruling in Gallo that state law does not prohibit double dipping but does require the trial court to avoid unfairness in distributing marital assets and determining spousal support.
Ohio Court Affirms Facts of Case Don’t Require ‘Double-Dipping Offset’
Ohio appeals court upholds trial court’s spousal support determination based on husband’s average, rather than normalized, income, finding “equity did not require a double-dipping offset”; court agrees with sister court’s ruling in Gallo that applicable statute does not prohibit double dipping.
Kim v. Kim
Ohio appeals court upholds trial court’s spousal support determination based on husband’s average, rather than normalized, income, finding “equity did not require a double-dipping offset”; court agrees with sister court’s ruling in Gallo that applicable statute does not prohibit double dipping.
Oudheusden v. Oudheusden (I)
Appellate court remands because of trial court’s impermissible double dipping, where trial court awarded wife half of the fair market value of husband’s two solely owned businesses, which represented husband’s sole income stream, and based spousal support on annual income generated by businesses.
Connecticut Appellate Court Remands Because of Impermissible Double Dipping
Appellate court remands because of trial court’s impermissible double dipping, where trial court awarded wife half of the fair market value of husband’s two solely owned businesses, which represented husband’s sole income stream, and based spousal support on annual income generated by businesses.
Brusach v. Brusach
In divorce case featuring veterinary practice, appeals court finds trial court did not err when it did not differentiate between personal and enterprise goodwill and trial court’s spousal support determination did not represent unlawful double dipping.
Court Declines to Set Firm Rules on Goodwill and Double Dipping
In divorce case featuring veterinary practice, appeals court finds trial court did not err when it did not differentiate between personal and enterprise goodwill and trial court’s spousal support determination did not represent unlawful double dipping.
Avoiding Value Double-Count in Companies With Cross-Holdings
Have you unwittingly double-counted value in circumstances where there are cross-holdings? When undertaking a valuation, we sometimes come across companies within an organization structure that have cross-holdings in each other. In this article, we explore the valuation of such companies (the “cross-holdings companies”), including the valuation of the pro-rata common equity ownership interests held by individuals or entities above the cross-holdings companies. After arriving at the en bloc value of the common equity of the ...
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 ...
Washington Court Explains Principle Guiding Double-Dip Analysis
Appeals court says there was no double dipping where the business, valued under an income approach, was a going concern, not a fixed asset, and would continue to generate income for owner spouse with which to pay maintenance award to nonowner spouse.
Double-Dip Claim Fails to Resonate With Appeals Court
Court says awarding husband family business plus business income taken out to make business-related payments does not fit “notion of an impermissible ‘double dip’”; business was not a diminishing asset, and wife did not receive either of those assets.
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.
Washington Court Explains Principle Guiding Double-Dip Analysis
Appeals court says there was no double dipping where the business, valued under an income approach, was a going concern, not a fixed asset, and would continue to generate income for owner spouse with which to pay maintenance award to nonowner spouse.
In re Marriage of Cheng
Appeals court says there was no double dipping where the business, valued under an income approach, was a going concern, not a fixed asset, and would continue to generate income for owner spouse with which to pay maintenance award to nonowner spouse.
Double-Dip Claim Fails to Resonate With Appeals Court
Court says awarding husband family business plus business income taken out to make business-related payments does not fit “notion of an impermissible ‘double dip’”; business was not a diminishing asset, and wife did not receive either of those assets.
In re Marriage of Kirkendoll
Court says awarding husband family business plus business income taken out to make business-related payments does not fit “notion of an impermissible ‘double dip’”; business was not a diminishing asset, and wife did not receive either of those assets.
Service Business Valuation Triggers Double-Dip Rule
New York appellate court finds trial court’s spousal support determination violated double counting rule where expert valued husband’s solely owned engineering company based on an income approach and the business was a service business.