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.
Do-over case may need an active/passive appreciation analysis
In an Alaska divorce case, an appellate court (the state's Supreme Court) remanded the case back to the state’s Superior Court because the findings on the husband’s business as marital property were not detailed enough to allow for appellate review.
Calculation report used in court but had no rival
Most valuation analysts will not use a calculation report in court. But what if the other side has nothing?
Active depreciation charged to business owner in divorce
In a South Carolina divorce case, the business owner (husband) appealed the family court’s decision on the valuation of the family business.
Lymburner v. Axhelm
In a divorce case in Alaska, the Supreme Court determined that the wife’s expert’s valuation was superior to the husband’s expert’s valuation. Thus, the value of the business was not at issue on a remand. What was at issue was whether some or all of the businesses were separate property rather than marital property as the lower court ruled.
Alaska Supreme Court Remands for Determination of Marital Property But Affirms Lower Court’s Acceptance of Wife’s Business Value
In a divorce case in Alaska, the Supreme Court determined that the wife’s expert’s valuation was superior to the husband’s expert’s valuation. Thus, the value of the business was not at issue on a remand. What was at issue was whether some or all of the businesses were separate property rather than marital property as the lower court ruled.
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.
Clampitt v. Clampitt
The husband appealed the family court’s valuation of the family business. In a brief opinion, the court of appeals (South Carolina) affirmed the family court’s value because the change in value during the litigation was attributable to the husband, the family court accounted for personal goodwill, and the valuation was within the range of evidence presented.
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.
South Carolina Appeals Court Affirms Value of Family Business—Within Evidence Presented
The husband appealed the family court’s valuation of the family business. In a brief opinion, the court of appeals (South Carolina) affirmed the family court’s value because the change in value during the litigation was attributable to the husband, the family court accounted for personal goodwill, and the valuation was within the range of evidence presented.
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.
Gore v. Gore
The key element in the appeal of this divorce case revolved around the valuation of the wife’s business, selling dietary supplements online. The wife failed to produce in a timely manner the documents the husband requested. She also failed to timely declare an expert who could testify as to the value of her business. “Wife appealed the circuit court’s award of monetary sanctions and the court’s exclusion of her and her expert’s testimony regarding her company’s valuation, as well as her attempts to testify regarding the value of her business. Husband cross-appealed the court’s distribution of marital property and the resultant monetary award.”
Appellate Court (Maryland) Affirms Trial Court’s Decision to Exclude Testimony of Wife’s Expert
The key element in the appeal of this divorce case revolved around the valuation of the wife’s business, selling dietary supplements online. The wife failed to produce in a timely manner the documents the husband requested. She also failed to timely declare an expert who could testify as to the value of her business. “Wife appealed the circuit court’s award of monetary sanctions and the court’s exclusion of her and her expert’s testimony regarding her company’s valuation, as well as her attempts to testify regarding the value of her business. Husband cross-appealed the court’s distribution of marital property and the resultant monetary award.”
Divorce valuation is too little, too late
This is another in a rash of cases where one side either did not engage a valuation expert or did not use the expert to the best advantage.