Expand the following panels for additional search options.

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.

Snyder v. Snyder

In this Pennsylvania divorce matter, the appellate court accepted the wife’s valuation of the marital business using the “gross sales approach,” despite the husband’s objection that she was not qualified to determine the value. The trial court master recommended the wife’s value be accepted. However, the appellate court finds that the trial court double counted four business assets and remanded for a redetermination of the marital estate.

Court Affirms Acceptance of the Wife’s Gross Sales Valuation Method for the Marital Business, Remands for Double Counting of Business Assets

In this Pennsylvania divorce matter, the appellate court accepted the wife’s valuation of the marital business using the “gross sales approach,” despite the husband’s objection that she was not qualified to determine the value. The trial court master recommended the wife’s value be accepted. However, the appellate court finds that the trial court double counted four business assets and remanded for a redetermination of the marital estate.

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.

Statistical Methodologies for Analyzing Active and Passive Appreciation

A rundown of the existing quantitative models that have been developed that separates the active and passive appreciation of a closely held business involved in a marital dissolution case. The models seek to statistically identify market forces that reasonably cause changes in the value of assets.

Kakollu v. Vadlamudi

In this marital dissolution case, the Indiana Appellate Court affirms the trial court’s decision that no DLOM is allowed in the valuation of a control interest. The husband’s expert failed to provide sufficient evidence that a DLOM was appropriate at the level the wife’s expert claimed. The court also affirmed the decision that $50,000 of legal and expert fees the husband paid in advance is not part of the marital estate and thus not subject to offset.

Court Affirms No DLOM in Valuation of a Control Interest, Wife’s Legal Fees Are Not Part of Marital Estate

In this marital dissolution case, the Indiana Appellate Court affirms the trial court’s decision that no DLOM is allowed in the valuation of a control interest. The husband’s expert failed to provide sufficient evidence that a DLOM was appropriate at the level the wife’s expert claimed. The court also affirmed the decision that $50,000 of legal and expert fees the husband paid in advance is not part of the marital estate and thus not subject to offset.

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).

Letter to the Editor: Comments on Using Jensen’s Alpha for Active and Passive Appreciation

This is a Letter to the Editor from Ashok B. Abbott, Ph.D. (West Virginia University), in response to a prior article on segregating passive from active increases in the value of an asset in the context of marital dissolution.

Letter to the Editor: Response to Dr. Abbott’s Comments on Using Jensen’s Alpha for Separating Active and Passive Appreciation

This is a Letter to the Editor from Mark Filler that responds to comments from Dr. Ashok Abbott about Mr. Filler’s prior article on the use of Jensen’s alpha. Dr. Abbott’s comments can be found elsewhere in this issue.

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).

Goodwill: A Discussion and a Debate

Two of the most knowledgeable experts in the area of goodwill and personal goodwill, Alan Zipp and Jim Alerding, will cover the key issues and controversies that you want to know about. They will discuss and debate frequently asked questions on the topic, and while sometimes they will agree and sometimes they will disagree, in all cases they will attempt to inform and educate the attendees on the topic.

In Florida divorce, expert’s ‘with-and-without’ valuation withstands appeal

In a nasty Florida divorce case, an appellate court recently upheld the trial court’s valuation findings concerning the husband’s 50% interest in a successful company that operates in the waste disposal industry.

Court Remands for Determination of Separate Asset’s Premarital Value

Appellate court affirms that increase in value of husband’s company is subject to equitable distribution but says trial court erred when it assumed company had zero value on the date of marriage because company then was not profitable; court remands for determination of company’s premarital value.

Appreciation in Liquor Company’s Value Represents Marital Property, Appeals Court Finds

Appeals court upholds ruling that appreciation in value of husband’s interest in family liquor business is marital asset; trial court carefully analyzed husband’s role in company to find he “substantially contributed” to the increase and husband stipulated to wife’s substantial contribution.

Court Explains Treatment of Undistributed Earnings in Valuing Law Firm Partnership Interest

In valuing husband’s law firm partnership interest, court finds undistributed earnings, even though allocated to husband before separation, are not marital property because money was based on firm’s anticipated net profits; money was not earned during marriage but after parties’ separation.

Burchfield v. Burchfield

In valuing husband’s law firm partnership interest, court finds undistributed earnings, even though allocated to husband before separation, are not marital property because money was based on firm’s anticipated net profits; money was not earned during marriage but after parties’ separation.

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.

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.

Fox v. Fox

Appellate court affirms that increase in value of husband’s company is subject to equitable distribution but says trial court erred when it assumed company had zero value on the date of marriage because company then was not profitable; court remands for determination of company’s premarital value.

Lucchesi v. Lucchesi

Appeals court upholds ruling that appreciation in value of husband’s interest in family liquor business is marital asset; trial court carefully analyzed husband’s role in company to find he “substantially contributed” to the increase and husband stipulated to wife’s substantial contribution.

Split high court rules on classification of earnout payment in divorce dispute

The parties’ dispute over how to classify earnout payments related to the sale of a valuable marital asset recently prompted a split ruling from the Minnesota Supreme Court. The issue was whether those payments were part of the sales consideration, as the wife argued, or represented future compensation to the husband, as the district court found.

Contentious ruling from Minnesota high court on dealing with earnout payments in divorce

In an important ruling, a divided Minnesota Supreme Court recently ruled on whether earnout payments related to the sale of the husband’s interest in a lucrative company were a marital asset.

1 - 25 of 74 results