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.
Neutral valuer does what he can with limited info
In a California divorce case, a court-appointed valuation expert was caught in the middle of a squabbling couple who didn’t provide enough information to value all the marital assets, including business interests.
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.
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 Hembree
In this appeal of a denied motion by the wife to set aside a marital settlement order, the appellate court affirmed the trial court. The wife claimed that the husband did not disclose a number of marital assets and misrepresented the values of certain marital assets. The trial court appointed its own expert for valuation of assets. The expert was unable to value a number of the assets for lack of information including a lack of proof of existence of some alleged assets.
Appellate Court (California) Affirms Denial of Wife’s Motion Claiming Missing Assets and Undervalued Assets
In this appeal of a denied motion by the wife to set aside a marital settlement order, the appellate court affirmed the trial court. The wife claimed that the husband did not disclose a number of marital assets and misrepresented the values of certain marital assets. The trial court appointed its own expert for valuation of assets. The expert was unable to value a number of the assets for lack of information including a lack of proof of existence of some alleged assets.
BV News and Trends May 2023
A monthly roundup of key developments of interest to business valuation experts.
Lieberman-Massoni v. Massoni
The trial court in this New York divorce awarded the value of the husband’s class B units in lieu of awarding a portion of the actual units to the wife and also barred the wife from any distributions on those units occurring after the valuation date.
New York Appellate Court Affirms Award of Value of Husband’s Class B Units in Lieu of Actual Distribution of Share of Units
The trial court in this New York divorce awarded the value of the husband’s class B units in lieu of awarding a portion of the actual units to the wife and also barred the wife from any distributions on those units occurring after the valuation date.
Have you tried Abbott’s passive appreciation calculator?
In last week’s BVWire, we mentioned that Dr. Ashok Abbott (West Virginia University) has developed an online application that produces a passive appreciation factor on a national level for businesses in the retail sector.
Court do-over to figure passive appreciation for divorce
In an Ohio divorce case, the trial court made an award to the wife based on the full fair market value of the husband’s business.
Ohio Appellate Court Remands Value of Businesses for Determination of Active Appreciation
This matter involved cross-appeals from a divorce decree in Trumbull County, Ohio. The focus of this digest relates to cross-appeals relating to the values of the husband’s businesses and the matter of active appreciation on those businesses.
Fordeley v. Fordeley
This matter involved cross-appeals from a divorce decree in Trumbull County, Ohio. The focus of this digest relates to cross-appeals relating to the values of the husband’s businesses and the matter of active appreciation on those businesses.
Absent a goodwill analysis, the court does its own
In a Tennessee divorce case involving the husband’s plastic surgery practice, neither valuation expert did an analysis that separated enterprise and personal goodwill.
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.
Valuing a minority interest with no information on the subject company
In a Maryland divorce case, neither valuation expert had any documents or financial information from the husband’s ambulatory surgical center (ASC) in which he owned a small interest.
Brown v. Brown
In this Mississippi divorce case, the appellate court en banc reversed in part and remanded in part, asking the trial court to determine whether certain items were marital property and determine the values for certain marital properties so a proper distribution of marital property can be made. Included was a used-car business that was remanded for a value to be determined. Several judges dissented primarily because the marital estate in total was not very material and they believed the appellate court could have made adjustments without remanding.
Mississippi Appeals Court En Banc Remands for Valuation of a Small Used-Car Business With Dissents From Several Judges
In this Mississippi divorce case, the appellate court en banc reversed in part and remanded in part, asking the trial court to determine whether certain items were marital property and determine the values for certain marital properties so a proper distribution of marital property can be made. Included was a used-car business that was remanded for a value to be determined. Several judges dissented primarily because the marital estate in total was not very material and they believed the appellate court could have made adjustments without remanding.
Goicochea v. Goicochea
This case was an appeal from a trial court’s various decisions relating to a divorce matter. Among other issues appealed, the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s determination of the value of the husband’s small minority interest (0.829301%) in an ambulatory surgery center. The wife’s expert used a prior transaction of a 1.1125% in the center to determine the husband’s value.
Maryland Court Affirms the Value of Husband’s Minority Interest in an Ambulatory Surgery Center
This case was an appeal from a trial court’s various decisions relating to a divorce matter. Among other issues appealed, the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s determination of the value of the husband’s small minority interest (0.829301%) in an ambulatory surgery center. The wife’s expert used a prior transaction of a 1.1125% in the center to determine the husband’s value.
Financial advisor’s book of business is not a marital asset
In a Tennessee divorce case, an appellate court affirmed the judgment of the trial court that the husband’s book of business as a financial advisor for UBS is not a marital asset.
Hollis v. Hollis
One of the main issues in this appeal was how to classify the husband’s “book of business,” i.e., his client relationships, assets under management, and related income. The husband was a financial advisor for UBS. The wife contended the book of business had value that constituted a marital asset. The husband pointed out that UBS now took the position that a financial advisor who left the company cannot take any information with him or her. The court also noted that “deferred cash agreements” were actually bonuses that were marital assets. The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s decision to exclude the book of business from marital assets. The court also affirmed the trial court decision on payment of alimony to the wife “in futuro.”