Journal of Business Valuation 2015 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.
Connecticut court’s impermissible double dipping triggers remand
In a noteworthy decision, a Connecticut appellate court recently found the trial court double dipped when it divided the marital assets and calculated spousal support.
Trail income is different from personal goodwill, Tennessee court clarifies
Tennessee does not consider personal goodwill in a solo proprietorship a marital asset. But what about trail income, the money a financial planner makes from managing his or her clients’ funds and portfolios? In Fuller v. Fuller, the owner-spouse argued the goodwill analysis applied to the treatment of trail income as well. The Tennessee Court of Appeals recently disagreed.
Guidance for valuators on Washington state double dip jurisprudence
Double dipping is a tricky issue because different states have developed different approaches to it. Valuators specializing in divorce issues must know the controlling case law in the state in which they practice. A recent decision by the Washington state Court of Appeals clarifies its state's analytical framework in a case featuring a successful management consulting business the husband had set up and grown during the marriage.
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.
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.
Bohme v. Bohme
In a divorce case involving dental practice, appeals court says using income stream “as a tool” to value a professional business and then using it “as actual income for a spousal support calculation” does not per se amount to impermissible double dipping.
Loutts v. Loutts
State spousal support statute does not flatly forbid double dipping, but requires courts to consider all circumstances of a particular case and principles of fairness, appellate court rules.
Kowalska-Davis v. Davis
Massachusetts Court of Appeals acknowledge trend in that state to find an equitable solution to the problem of the double dip in divorce, involving making separate findings regarding the income of the owner-spouse from the business and the income/assets o ...
Heller v. Heller (III)
Court of Appeals ratifies its prior decisions concerning the prohibition against the double-dip in this case, but reverses the trial court’s support award as unreasonable and unsupported use of his business profits.
Heller v. Heller (II)
Court of Appeals determines, based on the nature of the husband’s interest in an S corporation, that the state marital dissolution statutes prohibit the double dip; i.e., the trial court awarding the wife an interest in the business and then awarding spou ...
Haynes v. Haynes
Divorce court adopts a broker’s net asset value for licensing bureau, finding that its lack of transferability was key applying to this approach versus a BV expert’s capitalization/excess earnings analysis.
In re Marriage of Blazer
California appellate court declines to adopt the prohibition against “double- dipping” in divorce.
Fleischmann v. Fleischmann
This action for divorce was commenced on January 23, 2006.