Valuation of court-appointed expert upheld
The Appellate Division held that the lower court properly relied on the opinion of the court-appointed expert, “who employed acceptable valuation methods to determine the value of the [husband's] partnership interest.
Minassian v. Minassian (II)
Court appointed expert's valuation rejected because of errors made due to his inexperience in valuing jewelry business.
Mousavi v. Vakili
Husband's motion to revalue assets because of change in value prior to judgement date denied because claims of loss in value were purely speculative.
Camp v. Camp
Income approach to property valuation affirmed, in spite of rejection of various "ingredients" in that approach (management cost, cap rate ...
Owens v. Owens
Seeing that a sale of husband's interest in his corporation was not probable, the judge did not allow a minority interest to be applied.
In re the Marriage of Wilson
Trial court's adoption of husband's expert's value of professional goodwill adopted because of expert's use of all five recognized valuation techniques.
Fitzgerald v. Fitzgerald
Case is remanded for several reasons among which is that it provided no basis for its valuation of husband's interest in surgical practice, simply picking a figure within a range of values.
Ubertaccio v Ubertaccio
Wife claim that her stock valuation should have a coverture formula applied is denied because the stock benefit was found to be the result of marital effort.
Husband’s version of the facts not supported by the record
Husband and wife were married in 1979, and wife filed for divorce in 2000.
Minnesota Supreme Court affirms that passive appreciation in nonmarital property is nonmarital
Earnings retained in wife’s AAA were not income because they might never be distributed, nor were the earnings active appreciation.
Preseparation valuation date upheld
The court of appeals held that the trial court’s use of the pre-separation valuation date for husband's neurology practice was not an abuse of discretion.
Single customer relationship results in zero value
Trial court did not err in adopting zero valuation where appraiser considered nature of trucking company and that its revenue was from a single customer.
Arneson v. Arneson
Wife's expert's opinion held up as more credible, in part because the valuation date was the date both parties had agreed to, whereas husband's expert had not.
Alley v. Alley
At issue is the valuation of debt owned by the marital business (trial court did not value this) as well as classification of other debts as marital.
Anzalone v. Anzalone
On appeal, the court found that the trial court erred in discounting the wife's stock awarded to husband for capital gains.
Parties failed to distinguish personal and practice goodwill
Wife’s expert, Richard Schwartz, testified that the fair market values of ADC and Gastro were $911,200 and $1,477,000, respectively,Husband was a gastroenterologist who owned a clinic ...
Failure to prove active appreciation in value of stock results in remand
The issue in this case was the characterization of husband’s interest in a mining company. The parties were married in 1968.
Experts comparable rent analysis the deciding factor
The issue on appeal was the value of the parties’ two businesses. The parties met in 1983 and married in 1991.
Case Remanded to Trial Court for Failure to Value the Business
The issue in this marital dissolution was whether the trial court erred in failing to value the company and instead splitting the husband’s stock between the parties.
Consideration of Post-Dissolution Events Improper
The issue in this post-dissolution matter was whether the court erred in re-evaluating the original valuation of the husband’s business.
Valuation Within Range of Expert Testimony Upheld
Husband received Scheppelmann Electric as a gift from his father about two years after the parties were married.
No Distinction Between Types of Goodwill
n the December 2002 issue of the BVU we abstracted the Mississippi Supreme Court opinion in this case.
Bungard v. Bungard
On appeal the wife argues that the trial court should not have deducted certain expenses from her expert's valuation of husband's veterinary practice. At issue also is the date of valuation ...
Boyd v. Boyd
Issue is whether the trial court erred in valuing the husband's business, and including an amount for goodwill in the value.
Opinion of Goodwill for practice of Dr. Fredirick I. Field
This document is in .pdf and requires Adobe Acrobat for viewing. Click here to download Adobe Acrobat.