Expand the following panels for additional search options.

Chase v. Chase

On appeal, the husband asked the court to review whether the wife needed alimony given the assets she otherwise received in the equitable distribution and her earning capacity as a pharmacist, whether an award of rehabilitative alimony and alimony in futuro by the trial court was appropriate, and whether the trial court’s valuation of the husband’s medical practice was in error. The appellate court affirmed the trial court in all aspects reviewed and did not award legal fees to either party.

Tennessee Appeals Court Affirms Trial Court Decision on Spousal Support and on the Value of Husband’s Medical Practice

On appeal, the husband asked the court to review whether the wife needed alimony given the assets she otherwise received in the equitable distribution and her earning capacity as a pharmacist, whether an award of rehabilitative alimony and alimony in futuro by the trial court was appropriate, and whether the trial court’s valuation of the husband’s medical practice was in error. The appellate court affirmed the trial court in all aspects reviewed and did not award legal fees to either party.

In re Trapp

The primary issue in this Illinois appeal of a divorce decree dealt with the value of a company owning two buildings. The primary tenant in both buildings was the husband’s electrician business. The trial court accepted the value of the real estate company the husband’s business valuation expert, who was not a real estate appraiser, submitted. The business appraiser valued the two buildings using what the court determined to be “competent evidence.”

Illinois Appeals Court Affirms Trial Court’s Acceptance of Real Estate Value in Absence of Wife’s Submission of a Competing Value

The primary issue in this Illinois appeal of a divorce decree dealt with the value of a company owning two buildings. The primary tenant in both buildings was the husband’s electrician business. The trial court accepted the value of the real estate company the husband’s business valuation expert, who was not a real estate appraiser, submitted. The business appraiser valued the two buildings using what the court determined to be “competent evidence.”

Brown v. Brown

In this Mississippi divorce case, the appellate court en banc reversed in part and remanded in part, asking the trial court to determine whether certain items were marital property and determine the values for certain marital properties so a proper distribution of marital property can be made. Included was a used-car business that was remanded for a value to be determined. Several judges dissented primarily because the marital estate in total was not very material and they believed the appellate court could have made adjustments without remanding.

Mississippi Appeals Court En Banc Remands for Valuation of a Small Used-Car Business With Dissents From Several Judges

In this Mississippi divorce case, the appellate court en banc reversed in part and remanded in part, asking the trial court to determine whether certain items were marital property and determine the values for certain marital properties so a proper distribution of marital property can be made. Included was a used-car business that was remanded for a value to be determined. Several judges dissented primarily because the marital estate in total was not very material and they believed the appellate court could have made adjustments without remanding.

Court uses old transaction to value a dental practice

In a North Carolina divorce case, the wife’s stake in a dental practice was valued based on what she paid for it two years before she and her husband separated in 2015 (the valuation date).

Mikalacki v. Rubezic

In this Arizona marital dissolution case, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s acceptance of a calculation of value to determine the value of a couple’s law practice, awarded to the husband as part of the equitable distribution. Other matters not related to valuation issues were part of the appellate decision.

Arizona Appeals Court Affirms Trial Court’s Acceptance of a Calculation of Value

In this Arizona marital dissolution case, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s acceptance of a calculation of value to determine the value of a couple’s law practice, awarded to the husband as part of the equitable distribution. Other matters not related to valuation issues were part of the appellate decision.

Logue v. Logue

In this marital dissolution case in North Carolina, the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s determination of value of the wife’s dental practice. The trial court determined the value based on the value of the entire practice determined several years before the separation date. That value was determined by appraisals by professional appraisers to determine the buyout of the husband’s father’s 50% interest in the practice. No evidence of value as of the separation date was provided by the parties who decided not to hire appraisers to assess the value at the separation date.

North Carolina Appellate Court Values a Dental Practice Based on a Two-Year-Old Purchase of an Interest in the Practice

In this marital dissolution case in North Carolina, the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s determination of value of the wife’s dental practice. The trial court determined the value based on the value of the entire practice determined several years before the separation date. That value was determined by appraisals by professional appraisers to determine the buyout of the husband’s father’s 50% interest in the practice. No evidence of value as of the separation date was provided by the parties who decided not to hire appraisers to assess the value at the separation date.

Simons v. Simons

The Nebraska Supreme Court allowed a fair value determination by the wife’s expert as the appropriate value for a divorce case and did not include any discounts that might apply in a fair market value determination. Much of the opinion dealt with the issue of a constructive trust, which the trial court determined results in a 50% ownership by the wife in the family business.

Nebraska Supreme Court Allows Fair Value Determination for Family-Owned Business and Does Not Allow Discounts

The Nebraska Supreme Court allowed a fair value determination by the wife’s expert as the appropriate value for a divorce case and did not include any discounts that might apply in a fair market value determination. Much of the opinion dealt with the issue of a constructive trust, which the trial court determined results in a 50% ownership by the wife in the family business.

Nothing personal about goodwill in dental practice

In a South Carolina divorce case, the appellate court reversed the family court on the issue of personal versus enterprise goodwill.

Bostick v. Bostick

The South Carolina Court of Appeals, in this divorce case, reversed the family court and included all goodwill of a dentistry practice as enterprise goodwill includable in the marital estate. The family court had included all of the goodwill as personal goodwill not part of the marital estate. The Court of Appeals also reduced the temporary monthly alimony.

Appellate Court Reversed Decision and Treated All Goodwill as Enterprise Goodwill Includable in the Marital Estate

The South Carolina Court of Appeals, in this divorce case, reversed the family court and included all goodwill of a dentistry practice as enterprise goodwill includable in the marital estate. The family court had included all of the goodwill as personal goodwill not part of the marital estate. The Court of Appeals also reduced the temporary monthly alimony.

Hester v. Hester

In this Virginia divorce case, the court, among other things, did not accept the valuation of either valuator and instead determined its own value crafted from the two valuations that were submitted. The result, by chance or otherwise, resulted in “splitting the baby.”

Divorce Matter Results in the Court ‘Splitting the Baby’ to Value a 20% Interest in an S Corp. Medical Practice

In this Virginia divorce case, the court, among other things, did not accept the valuation of either valuator and instead determined its own value crafted from the two valuations that were submitted. The result, by chance or otherwise, resulted in “splitting the baby.”

Asare v. Asare

In this marital dissolution appellate case, the appellate court must resolve a number of issues related to the equitable distribution of the marital estate. On most issues, the appellate court affirmed the trial court. However, the appellate court reversed the trial court on the issue of how much passive appreciation related to an investment account was includable in the marital estate.

North Carolina Appellate Court Reverses Trial Court on Amount of Passive Appreciation in an Investment Account

In this marital dissolution appellate case, the appellate court must resolve a number of issues related to the equitable distribution of the marital estate. On most issues, the appellate court affirmed the trial court. However, the appellate court reversed the trial court on the issue of how much passive appreciation related to an investment account was includable in the marital estate.

Appellate court KOs unaccrued interest on dissipated assets

In a divorce case, an appellate court vacated the order of the trial court that erroneously charged the husband with over $4 million in unaccrued interest on marital assets that the husband fraudulently dissipated from the marital estate.

Mohen v. Mohen

In the trial court (TC), the wife was awarded $4,360,158 of mostly unaccrued interest on the corpus of trusts the husband set up unilaterally for the children. The TC took the value of those trusts, $9,291,372, as part of the marital estate. The TC also added $990,945 of interest that the trusts had received and the remaining unaccrued future interest for a total value of “distribution” paid to the husband of $14,642,475 related to the trusts. The appellate court (AC) determined that the future interest was future interest and, thus, not part of the marital estate. However, the AC let stand the determination that the value of the trusts were to be treated as a distribution to the husband.

Husband Dissipates Assets by Placing Them in Trusts for the Children, but the Appellate Court Does Not Allow Unaccrued Interest

In the trial court (TC), the wife was awarded $4,360,158 of mostly unaccrued interest on the corpus of trusts the husband set up unilaterally for the children. The TC took the value of those trusts, $9,291,372, as part of the marital estate. The TC also added $990,945 of interest that the trusts had received and the remaining unaccrued future interest for a total value of “distribution” paid to the husband of $14,642,475 related to the trusts. The appellate court (AC) determined that the future interest was future interest and, thus, not part of the marital estate. However, the AC let stand the determination that the value of the trusts were to be treated as a distribution to the husband.

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).

Personal v. Enterprise Goodwill in Florida Divorce Cases: What the Appellate Courts Say

In the wake of the recent King case, this is an analysis of marital dissolution case law from the Florida Supreme Court and the five District Courts of Appeal (DCA) of Florida that relates to the valuation of personal and enterprise goodwill in that state.

1 - 25 of 129 results