Rabe v. Rabe (II)
Appeals court affirms trial court’s valuation, which implicitly assigned goodwill to business, finding that since the company was not a professional practice it is likely that the company’s, rather than the owner spouse’s, reputation brings in business.
Reedy-Huffman v. Huffman
State high court affirms trial court’s determination that husband’s naturopathic practice had zero goodwill value based solely on husband’s testimony that a similar practice in the area failed to attract a buyer despite being on the market for a year.
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.
Schickner v. Schickner
Appeals court says state law does not bar use of minority share discount in divorce cases and declines to impose a bright-line rule; rather, the trial court has to consider interest holder’s level of control and likelihood of sale before use of discount.
Corning v. Corning
The appellant in this case, the wife, appealed the trial court order for equitable distribution and alimony. The crux of the issues revolved around the values and date of value of two businesses owned by the parties and awarded to the husband in the distribution order. The appellate court affirmed the lower court’s orders.
North Carolina Appellate Court Affirms Trial Court Appeal of Valuation of Businesses Divorce
The appellant in this case, the wife, appealed the trial court order for equitable distribution and alimony. The crux of the issues revolved around the values and date of value of two businesses owned by the parties and awarded to the husband in the distribution order. The appellate court affirmed the lower court’s orders.
High Valuations Complicate Division of Sizable Marital Estate
Appeals court affirms trial court’s above fair market value determinations regarding husband’s interests in various family businesses and the resulting equalization judgment but rejects trial court’s means with which to enforce payment of judgment.
Can You Trust a Valuation That Falls Short of AICPA Standards?
Appeals court finds error in trial court’s refusal to value business; even if limited data caused expert’s estimate to fall short of AICPA standard, it was based on the market approach, a “sound and reasonable method to value a closely-held business.”
Crider v. Crider
Appeals court affirms trial court’s above fair market value determinations regarding husband’s interests in various family businesses and the resulting equalization judgment but rejects trial court’s means with which to enforce payment of judgment.
Court Pans Valuation Based on Expert’s Fiction, Not Fact
High court rejects valuation of husband’s interest in closely held company where wife’s expert transformed it from one owned by four people into one managed by one person to increase its overall value.
Hugh v. Hugh
Appeals court finds error in trial court’s refusal to value business; even if limited data caused expert’s estimate to fall short of AICPA standard, it was based on the market approach, a “sound and reasonable method to value a closely-held business.”
Ward v. Ward
High court rejects valuation of husband’s interest in closely held company where wife’s expert transformed it from one owned by four people into one managed by one person to increase its overall value.
Schuman v. Schuman
State high court says appeals court erred in classifying wife’s stock awards as separate property based solely on vesting; stock awards are form of deferred compensation, like retirement benefits, and are acquired “when they are earned, and not at the time of receipt, vesting or exercise.”
Rejected option agreement that is part of bigger deal does not determine value
One of the issues in this marital dissolution was the value of husband’s bar, Knicker’s Saloon.
In re Marriage of Gerhard
One of the issues in this marital dissolution was the value of husband's bar, Knicker's Saloon.