Blount v. Blount
The appellant wife in this case argued that the trial court failed to divide the marital estate equitably because it did not make an explicit finding of fact as to the valuation of the business that it awarded solely to her but instead only made a finding as to the “excess cash” found in the business. The appellate court affirmed the trial court, explaining that a specific finding of value was not required. (Editor’s note: According to a well-known family law attorney, this likely would be reversible error if specific findings were requested and should be even if not ...
Georgia Appellate Court Affirms Order Allocating Excess Cash From Business to Husband but Fails to Assign Value to the Business
The appellant wife in this case argued that the trial court failed to divide the marital estate equitably because it did not make an explicit finding of fact as to the valuation of the business that it awarded solely to her but instead only made a finding as to the “excess cash” found in the business. The appellate court affirmed the trial court, explaining that a specific finding of value was not required. (Editor’s note: According to a well-known family law attorney, this likely would be reversible error if specific findings were requested and should be even if not ...
State’s high court reverses appellate court on personal goodwill
In South Carolina divorce matters, enterprise goodwill is marital property subject to equitable division, but personal goodwill is not.
Divorce court sets valuation date that veers from state’s norm
In Kentucky, the valuation date for a marital dissolution case is generally the date of divorce. In a new case, a court did not use the date of divorce but had good reasons.
No DLOC on a 50% interest, says appellate court
In a divorce matter in Indiana, the husband and wife each owned a 50% interest in a crop-dusting business.
Townsend v. Townsend
This was yet another case that emphasized the importance of the valuation expert’s responsibility to identify the amount of personal versus enterprise goodwill in a specific case.
Indiana Appellate Court Affirms the Value of Husband’s Business That Excludes Personal Goodwill but Adds Back DLOC as Parties’ Interests Must be Combined
This was yet another case that emphasized the importance of the valuation expert’s responsibility to identify the amount of personal versus enterprise goodwill in a specific case.
Delk v. Delk
The selection of a trial date in this case had further implications for the value of the husband’s business. An FDA investigation resulting in a large fine and impairment of the business was not known at the valuation date and thus was not allowed in determining the value of the business for marital estate purposes.
Kentucky Appellate Court Affirms Selection of Valuation Date and Applies Known or Knowable Concept
The selection of a trial date in this case had further implications for the value of the husband’s business. An FDA investigation resulting in a large fine and impairment of the business was not known at the valuation date and thus was not allowed in determining the value of the business for marital estate purposes.
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.
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.
Kemmet v. Kemmet
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.
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.
BV News and Trends February 2024
A monthly roundup of key developments of interest to business valuation experts.
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.
In re Hebert
In this New Hampshire divorce appeal, the husband appealed the trial court’s property division, the awarding of 13 years of alimony, awarding of 100% of the proceeds of the sale of residences, and awarding 50% of the value of the husband’s business and the real estate where the business was located. The Supreme Court of New Hampshire affirmed in part and remanded in part.
New Hampshire Supreme Court Affirms in Part and Vacates in Part and Remands Divorce Trial Court—Husband Fails to Provide Support for Expenses
In this New Hampshire divorce appeal, the husband appealed the trial court’s property division, the awarding of 13 years of alimony, awarding of 100% of the proceeds of the sale of residences, and awarding 50% of the value of the husband’s business and the real estate where the business was located. The Supreme Court of New Hampshire affirmed in part and remanded in part.
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.
Delay in divorce decree does not change valuation date
In a Montana divorce case, the husband became an owner of a business right before marriage.