Pemberton v. Pemberton
In this complex Minnesota divorce case, the appellate court was taxed with multiple issues to decide. Among those issues was the value of the two businesses the husband owned in whole or part. The district court determined values based on the wife’s expert’s valuation report. The husband’s expert was not engaged to give a valuation opinion. The appellate court did not take the husband’s expert’s criticisms and comment on value into account. The appellate court also found no error in the district court dividing the combined 2020 tax liabilities for the parties in two and allocating half to each party, nor in its decision not to allocate the husband’s excess tax paid as a result of filing separately in 2018 and 2019.
Appellate Court Affirms Value of Businesses and Tax Liability Issue
In this complex Minnesota divorce case, the appellate court was taxed with multiple issues to decide. Among those issues was the value of the two businesses the husband owned in whole or part. The district court determined values based on the wife’s expert’s valuation report. The husband’s expert was not engaged to give a valuation opinion. The appellate court did not take the husband’s expert’s criticisms and comment on value into account. The appellate court also found no error in the district court dividing the combined 2020 tax liabilities for the parties in two and allocating half to each party, nor in its decision not to allocate the husband’s excess tax paid as a result of filing separately in 2018 and 2019.
BV News and Trends May 2023
A monthly roundup of key developments of interest to business valuation experts.
Husband alleges wife foiled vet practice valuation
In a Kentucky divorce matter, the wife worked for the husband’s veterinary practice that he had purchased prior to their marriage.
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.
Maher v. Cmejrek
The wife appealed the trial court’s decisions as to the values of the husband’s interests in his various medical practices and clinics and challenged the trial court’s determination of the husband’s income for support purposes. The appellate court affirmed the values of the medical practices and clinics and remanded the determination of income for support purposes for recalculation.
Indiana Appellate Court Affirms Valuation of Medical Practice Interests of Husband but Remands for Recalculation of Husband’s Income for Child Support
The wife appealed the trial court’s decisions as to the values of the husband’s interests in his various medical practices and clinics and challenged the trial court’s determination of the husband’s income for support purposes. The appellate court affirmed the values of the medical practices and clinics and remanded the determination of income for support purposes for recalculation.
Cummings v. Cummings
In this appeal of a divorce case in Kentucky, the court determined that the family court did not abuse its discretion in its distribution of the proceeds of the sale of the husband’s veterinary practice. The family court determined that most of the proceeds were enterprise goodwill and, thus, marital property.
Kentucky Court Does Not Consider Date of Marriage Value of Veterinary Practice—Most of Value Is Enterprise Goodwill and, Thus, Marital
In this appeal of a divorce case in Kentucky, the court determined that the family court did not abuse its discretion in its distribution of the proceeds of the sale of the husband’s veterinary practice. The family court determined that most of the proceeds were enterprise goodwill and, thus, marital property.
Wife who foregoes expert can’t complain about the outcome
A marital dissolution case in Illinois is another instance of a party not offering a competing valuation and then appealing the outcome—to no avail.
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.
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.
In re Trapp
The primary issue in this Illinois appeal of a divorce decree dealt with the value of a company owning two buildings. The primary tenant in both buildings was the husband’s electrician business. The trial court accepted the value of the real estate company the husband’s business valuation expert, who was not a real estate appraiser, submitted. The business appraiser valued the two buildings using what the court determined to be “competent evidence.”
Illinois Appeals Court Affirms Trial Court’s Acceptance of Real Estate Value in Absence of Wife’s Submission of a Competing Value
The primary issue in this Illinois appeal of a divorce decree dealt with the value of a company owning two buildings. The primary tenant in both buildings was the husband’s electrician business. The trial court accepted the value of the real estate company the husband’s business valuation expert, who was not a real estate appraiser, submitted. The business appraiser valued the two buildings using what the court determined to be “competent evidence.”
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.
District Court Affirms Tax Court’s Decision That Deferred Payments to Spouse Are Not Deductible Alimony Payments
The district court in this appeal from the Tax Court affirmed the Tax Court’s decision that deferred payments the husband made to the wife were not deductible alimony payments and thus not taxable to the wife.
Redleaf v. Comm’r
The district court in this appeal from the Tax Court affirmed the Tax Court’s decision that deferred payments the husband made to the wife were not deductible alimony payments and thus not taxable to the wife.
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.”
The Tennessee Appeals Court Affirms the Trial Court’s Decision to Exclude From the Marital Estate Financial Advisor the Husband’s ‘Book of Business’
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.”
Husband shuns BV expert, loses case
In a Pennsylvania divorce case involving a restaurant, neither the husband nor the wife submitted formal business appraisals.
King v. King
In this Maryland divorce case, the Court of Special Appeals affirmed the trial court on all appealed issues including marital property determinations; monetary award to the wife; determination of incomes of the husband and wife; and determinations of alimony, child support, and related expenses. The Court of Special Appeals also affirmed that the husband’s business was not a gift and was marital property, and it determined the value of the business as the wife’s expert presented. Both parties were forensic accountants.