Expand the following panels for additional search options.

Tax rate slipup in dental practice valuation

In a North Dakota divorce case, both sides had expert valuations done on the husband’s dental practice.

Sneed v. Sneed

In this North Carolina appellate divorce case, the court affirmed the trial court decisions, including the determination of value of the husband’s law firm interest. The witness for the wife, who was originally a court-appointed expert, testified as to the value of the law practice and included his analysis of personal-versus-entity goodwill. Both courts included all goodwill in the marital estate as per North Carolina case law. The expert witness apparently submitted a calculation of value for his testimony.

North Carolina Court of Appeals Affirms Trial Court as to Inclusion of Personal Goodwill

In this North Carolina appellate divorce case, the court affirmed the trial court decisions, including the determination of value of the husband’s law firm interest. The witness for the wife, who was originally a court-appointed expert, testified as to the value of the law practice and included his analysis of personal-versus-entity goodwill. Both courts included all goodwill in the marital estate as per North Carolina case law. The expert witness apparently submitted a calculation of value for his testimony.

Cammenga v. Cammenga

In this Michigan divorce action, the court of appeals remanded for a second time for the trial court to measure the husband’s tax loss carryforward in an appropriate manner, including an option to value the loss carryforward annually.

Appellate Court (Michigan) Orders a Second Remand to Value a Tax Loss Carryforward Correctly

In this Michigan divorce action, the court of appeals remanded for a second time for the trial court to measure the husband’s tax loss carryforward in an appropriate manner, including an option to value the loss carryforward annually.

Bergquist v. Bergquist

The appellate court (Indiana) found that the circuit court abused its discretion when valuing the wife’s business by not determining a value based on there being no evidence that would support such a value. The appellate court remanded the issue of the value of the business for determination based on evidence that would support it.

Indiana Appellate Court Remands to Revalue Wife’s Business Supported by the Evidence

The appellate court (Indiana) found that the circuit court abused its discretion when valuing the wife’s business by not determining a value based on there being no evidence that would support such a value. The appellate court remanded the issue of the value of the business for determination based on evidence that would support it.

Kemmett v. Kemmett

The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed several issues regarding the district court’s valuation of and distribution of the marital estate, including the determination of the value of the husband’s dental practice. The district court accepted the higher value of the wife’s expert’s value of the dental practice, noting that the wife’s witness was more credible than the husband’s witness.

North Dakota Supreme Court Affirms Choice of Wife’s Expert’s Value of Dental Practice

The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed several issues regarding the district court’s valuation of and distribution of the marital estate, including the determination of the value of the husband’s dental practice. The district court accepted the higher value of the wife’s expert’s value of the dental practice, noting that the wife’s witness was more credible than the husband’s witness.

Court doesn’t appreciate active/passive analysis

An Alaska divorce case illustrates that the analysis of active and passive appreciation of a business during marriage continues to be a tricky one.

Basic assumption drives valuers way apart

In an Illinois divorce case, different fundamental assumptions about the husband’s picture frame business yielded greatly disparate values from the two experts.

Demenno v. Demenno

The Alaska Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court in determining the value of active appreciation and affirmed that the property in question remained the husband’s separate property and did not transmute to the marital estate.

Supreme Court (Alaska) Affirms Trial Court Calculation of Active Appreciation

The Alaska Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court in determining the value of active appreciation and affirmed that the property in question remained the husband’s separate property and did not transmute to the marital estate.

In re Rozdolsky

In this complex Illinois divorce case, the appellate court affirmed the valuation of the husband’s business. The trial court had already reduced the wife’s expert’s valuation by 30%. Overall, the husband raised nine issues on appeal, including having to contribute to the wife’s attorney’s and expert fees, resulting from the husband’s lack of cooperation in discovery.

Illinois Appellate Court Affirms Valuation of Marital Business

In this complex Illinois divorce case, the appellate court affirmed the valuation of the husband’s business. The trial court had already reduced the wife’s expert’s valuation by 30%. Overall, the husband raised nine issues on appeal, including having to contribute to the wife’s attorney’s and expert fees, resulting from the husband’s lack of cooperation in discovery.

Smith v. Smith

In this divorce case appeal, the appeals court remanded to the Chancery Court the issue of separate versus marital property. The appellate court determined that one of the husband’s businesses was marital property and not separate property as the Chancery Court decided. It remanded that portion of the Chancery decision with instructions to change the ruling and determine a value for the now marital property business—but without any goodwill.

Appellate Court (Mississippi) Affirms That Goodwill Is Not a Marital Asset

In this divorce case appeal, the appeals court remanded to the Chancery Court the issue of separate versus marital property. The appellate court determined that one of the husband’s businesses was marital property and not separate property as the Chancery Court decided. It remanded that portion of the Chancery decision with instructions to change the ruling and determine a value for the now marital property business—but without any goodwill.

Cronan v. Cronan

This case concerned an appeal of a family court magistrate’s decision as to the value of marital assets and the distribution thereof and denial of alimony to the wife. The plaintiff, the husband, is a physician shareholder in a medical imaging practice. The practice had a shareholder agreement that provided for the price to buy into and sell out of the practice. The wife’s expert determined the value of the husband’s shares under the fair market value standard but the trial court and supreme court went with the agreement value.

Rhode Island Supreme Court Affirms Value of Interest in Medical Practice Per Shareholder Agreement and Equitable Distribution of Assets

This case concerned an appeal of a family court magistrate’s decision as to the value of marital assets and the distribution thereof and denial of alimony to the wife. The plaintiff, the husband, is a physician shareholder in a medical imaging practice. The practice had a shareholder agreement that provided for the price to buy into and sell out of the practice. The wife’s expert determined the value of the husband’s shares under the fair market value standard but the trial court and supreme court went with the agreement value.

In re Marriage of Bornhofen

In this Illinois divorce case, the trial court adopted the value of the husband’s expert as to the value of the husband’s business and rejected the wife’s expert’s value. The trial court determined that the husband’s expert’s value was the only credible value. The wife sought to introduce additional valuation evidence, which the trial court also rejected. The appellate court affirmed the decision of the trial court.

Appellate Court (Illinois) Affirms Trial Court’s Rejection of One Expert’s Business Value and Adopts the Other Expert’s Value

In this Illinois divorce case, the trial court adopted the value of the husband’s expert as to the value of the husband’s business and rejected the wife’s expert’s value. The trial court determined that the husband’s expert’s value was the only credible value. The wife sought to introduce additional valuation evidence, which the trial court also rejected. The appellate court affirmed the decision of the trial court.

Barnes v. Barnes

The trial for this divorce case was extended almost eight months because the parties had assured the court it would be a three-day trial and it took four days. The fourth day was almost eight months after the end of the third day of trial. As a result, the husband argued that the value of his business should have been updated and consideration given to the effect of splitting the business’s real estate from the operations of the business. The appellate court noted that this issue had not been raised at trial and was, therefore, not appealable. Other issues not related to the business were issues for the appellate court.

Tennessee Appeals Court Affirms Trial Court Valuation and Trial Court’s Skepticism of Husband’s ‘Projections’

The trial for this divorce case was extended almost eight months because the parties had assured the court it would be a three-day trial and it took four days. The fourth day was almost eight months after the end of the third day of trial. As a result, the husband argued that the value of his business should have been updated and consideration given to the effect of splitting the business’s real estate from the operations of the business. The appellate court noted that this issue had not been raised at trial and was, therefore, not appealable. Other issues not related to the business were issues for the appellate court.

B.M. v. R.C.

The husband did not engage a valuation of his business, but the wife did. Her valuation expert arrived at a range of values, explaining that he lacked some information and that the information he did have regarding the financial status of the business did not reconcile. As a result, he set a range of values and determined that a range was the most appropriate way to determine the value. The trial court took an average of the range to determine the value for purposes of the marital estate. The supreme court affirmed the lower court decision to average the values.

The Supreme Court of Alaska Affirms the Use of a Range of Value to Determine the Value of a Business

The husband did not engage a valuation of his business, but the wife did. Her valuation expert arrived at a range of values, explaining that he lacked some information and that the information he did have regarding the financial status of the business did not reconcile. As a result, he set a range of values and determined that a range was the most appropriate way to determine the value. The trial court took an average of the range to determine the value for purposes of the marital estate. The supreme court affirmed the lower court decision to average the values.

1 - 25 of 161 results