Court Nixes Double-Dip Claim Based on Accounts Receivable Treatment
Appeals court rejects claim that accounts receivable used in asset-based business valuation by wife’s expert are analogous to future income stream for purposes of arguing double dip in light of income determination for spousal support award.
Husband's Roles in Company Negate Need for DLOC
Court affirms valuation of husband’s minority interest in business featuring zero DLOC where husband was key driving force behind business’s success and wielded influence and control; use of asset approach rendered double-dip theory inapplicable.
Gifford v Gifford
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.
Settele v. Settele
Appeals court rejects claim that accounts receivable used in asset-based business valuation by wife’s expert are analogous to future income stream for purposes of arguing double dip in light of income determination for spousal support award.
Asset Approach Avoids Double Counting of Future Earnings
Appeals court affirms trial court’s decision favoring asset approach for valuing owner spouse’s medical practices; unlike income approach, it avoids accounting for owner spouse’s future earning twice, in asset valuation and determination of alimony.
Sieber v. Sieber
Court affirms valuation of husband’s minority interest in business featuring zero DLOC where husband was key driving force behind business’s success and wielded influence and control; use of asset approach rendered double-dip theory inapplicable.
Callahan v. Callahan
Appellate court says trial court did not double dip where it predicated its alimony order on husband’s general earning capacity, independent of husband’s employment at companies that were marital assets subject to property division.
Court Rejects Double-Dip Claim, Emphasizing Owner’s General Earning Capacity
Appellate court says trial court did not double dip where it predicated its alimony order on husband’s general earning capacity, independent of husband’s employment at companies that were marital assets subject to property division.
High Company-Specific Risk Adjustment Distorts Valuation
In a buyout case, the court finds that, in reselling company, defendants undervalued rollover equity interest by double counting risks specific to the company in order to avoid triggering windfall provision in prior sales agreement favorable to plaintiff.
In re Mauer
Appeals court affirms trial court’s decision favoring asset approach for valuing owner spouse’s medical practices; unlike income approach, it avoids accounting for owner spouse’s future earning twice, in asset valuation and determination of alimony.
Charron v. Sallyport Global Holdings, Inc.
In a buyout case, the court finds that, in reselling company, defendants undervalued rollover equity interest by double counting risks specific to the company in order to avoid triggering windfall provision in prior sales agreement favorable to plaintiff.
In re Marriage of Valente
Appeals court says awarding wife a portion of business and a maintenance award is not double recovery (double dipping) where husband’s reasonable replacement compensation “was carved out of the income streams used for the valuation.”
Barth v. Barth
Appellate court affirms “sizeable” discounts for real estate development companies, including ones for bulk sale and carrying costs.
Different Income Valuations May Be Used to Determine Equitable Distribution and Alimony, Provided They Are Fair and Statutorily Compliant
The main issue in this marital dissolution case was whether in setting an award of alimony and in establishing equitable distribution in respect of a closely held corporation, the same income determination must be used.
Steneken v. Steneken (II)
The question was whether it is impermissible "double counting" to use actual income for alimony purposes but a lower "normalized" income amount when valuing a closely held business for equitable distribution purposes.
Lack of Understanding of Excess Earnings Method Leads to Marital Award Reflecting Double Dipping
The issue in this marital dissolution was the perceived “double counting” of the husband’s excess earnings from his closely held corporation, Esco.
Steneken v. Steneken (I)
The issue in this marital dissolution was the perceived “double counting” of the husband’s excess earnings from his closely held corporation, Esco.
In re Marriage of Barnett
Appeals court says awarding wife a lien on business and maintenance represents double recovery where owner was liquidating business and would make maintenance payments from his share of the distributed asset rather than future income derived the asset.