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.
Appeals court vacates going-concern valuation for firm being wound down
In an Arizona divorce case, the couple owned a business that was being phased out.
In Re Riddle
The appeal in this case dealt with, among other issues, the trial court’s decision to adopt the husband’s expert’s value that was based on a capitalization of earnings based on expected future income. The appellate court noted that the evidence from the trial showed that the business received no revenue after the wife sold her interest to a third party, and there was no evidence that similar earnings would occur in the future. The trial court’s determination of value was vacated and remanded.
Trial Court’s Decision of Value of Business Based on a Going Concern Is Reversed and Remanded
The appeal in this case dealt with, among other issues, the trial court’s decision to adopt the husband’s expert’s value that was based on a capitalization of earnings based on expected future income. The appellate court noted that the evidence from the trial showed that the business received no revenue after the wife sold her interest to a third party, and there was no evidence that similar earnings would occur in the future. The trial court’s determination of value was vacated and remanded.
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).
In Buyout Dispute, Appeals Court Finds There Was No Basis for Jury to Set Aside Appraisers’ Contractually Mandated Value Determination
In buyout dispute, appeals court reverses trial court’s judgment, finding it was based on jury’s erroneous decision to set aside a contractually mandated appraisal and provide its own buyout price; there was no indication the appraisers misinterpreted the controlling partnership agreement; court remands.
Parrish v. Schroering
In buyout dispute, appeals court reverses trial court’s judgment, finding it was based on jury’s erroneous decision to set aside a contractually mandated appraisal and provide its own buyout price; there was no indication the appraisers misinterpreted the controlling partnership agreement; court remands ...
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.
Washington appeals court issues key ruling on entity goodwill
In a “complicated” (court’s word) dissolution case, the Washington Court of Appeals recently made an important ruling on whether a professional limited liability company (PLLC) can have goodwill separate from the goodwill of the professionals.
McLelland v. Paxton
In dissolution dispute, appeals court affirms trial court’s finding, based on plaintiff expert testimony, that dissolved professional LLC had entity goodwill at trial based, in large part, on ownership of three leases and operation of offices that doctors could use upon termination of partnership.
Washington State Appeals Court Adopts Rule on Entity Goodwill in Professional LLC
In dissolution dispute, appeals court affirms trial court’s finding, based on plaintiff expert testimony, that dissolved professional LLC had entity goodwill at trial based, in large part, on ownership of three leases and operation of offices that doctors could use upon termination of partnership.
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.
Trustee’s Attack on Merger Projections Fails to Resonate With Court
Court says trustee fails to show debtor was insolvent under any applicable financial condition tests; contemporaneous industry analysis and valuations by financing banks belie claim that management projections in support of merger were unreasonable.
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.
Trustee’s Attack on Merger Projections Fails to Resonate With Court
Court says trustee fails to show debtor was insolvent under any applicable financial condition tests; contemporaneous industry analysis and valuations by financing banks belie claim that management projections in support of merger were unreasonable.
Weisfelner v. Blavatnik (In re Lyondell Chem. Co.)
Court says trustee fails to show debtor was insolvent under any applicable financial condition tests; contemporaneous industry analysis and valuations by financing banks belie claim that management projections in support of merger were unreasonable.
Valuation of key marital asset demands expert opinion
In a Mississippi divorce, the husband's sole-owned fitness training company was the key asset. An accurate valuation was central to achieving an equitable distribution of property, but the parties did not hire experts or even submit much financial information to the trial court.
No Place for DLOM and Tax Affecting in New York Fair Value Determination
In statutory fair value proceeding to enable buyout of minority interest in limited liability companies, New York court says prevailing expert opinion understates future income stream; court upward adjusts by eliminating DLOM and disallowing tax affecting ...