Demenno v. Demenno
The Alaska Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court in determining the value of active appreciation and affirmed that the property in question remained the husband’s separate property and did not transmute to the marital estate.
Supreme Court (Alaska) Affirms Trial Court Calculation of Active Appreciation
The Alaska Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court in determining the value of active appreciation and affirmed that the property in question remained the husband’s separate property and did not transmute to the marital estate.
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.
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.
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.
No do-over for valuation of business hit by COVID-19
In a Wisconsin marital dissolution case, COVID-19 negatively impacted the husband’s hair salon business, which had to shut down for a while.
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.
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.
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.
In re Marriage of Gill
The husband appealed the circuit court’s decision regarding his divorce decree and an order denying his motion to reconsider issues regarding the parties’ property division. He argued the circuit court erred in allocating less than half of the parties’ tax liability to the wife. He also argued the circuit court erred in denying his motion to reopen evidence regarding the impact of COVID-19 on his salon business. The appellate court rejected his arguments and affirmed the circuit court.
Appellate Court (Wisconsin) Affirms Trial Court Allocation of Tax Liability and Business Value in Divorce
The husband appealed the circuit court’s decision regarding his divorce decree and an order denying his motion to reconsider issues regarding the parties’ property division. He argued the circuit court erred in allocating less than half of the parties’ tax liability to the wife. He also argued the circuit court erred in denying his motion to reopen evidence regarding the impact of COVID-19 on his salon business. The appellate court rejected his arguments and affirmed the circuit court.
In re Marriage of Sommerville
This Iowa divorce case dealt with an appeal by the wife of the determined earnings of the husband and awards of child support and spousal maintenance. She also contended that the husband dissipated marital assets by failing to pay taxes and incurring penalties and interest. The appellate court determined that the trial court erred in determining the husband’s income and thus remanded for redetermination of child support and spousal support awards. The appellate court also affirmed the determination that the husband did not dissipate marital assets and affirmed the property division. Issues of evidence to determine income or earnings were also discussed.
Appellate Court Remands for New Determination of Husband’s Earnings, Affirms No Dissipation of Assets
This Iowa divorce case dealt with an appeal by the wife of the determined earnings of the husband and awards of child support and spousal maintenance. She also contended that the husband dissipated marital assets by failing to pay taxes and incurring penalties and interest. The appellate court determined that the trial court erred in determining the husband’s income and thus remanded for redetermination of child support and spousal support awards. The appellate court also affirmed the determination that the husband did not dissipate marital assets and affirmed the property division. Issues of evidence to determine income or earnings were also discussed.
‘Fawning terms’ help sink valuation
In an Iowa divorce case, the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s decision to reject the valuation of the husband’s expert for one of his three businesses.
In re Marriage of Marasco
This case was an appeal of an Iowa marital dissolution decree. The husband on appeal argued the value the wife’s expert determined was too high and should not have been relied on. The appellate court noted that part of the reason the trial court used the wife’s expert’s appraisal was that the business was able to obtain a $10 million loan during the time of the valuation. Additionally, the appellate court affirmed that the entire value of the business was community property.
Iowa Court of Appeals Affirms Value of Husband’s Business Determined by Wife’s Expert and Includes Total Value as Marital Property
This case was an appeal of an Iowa marital dissolution decree. The husband on appeal argued the value the wife’s expert determined was too high and should not have been relied on. The appellate court noted that part of the reason the trial court used the wife’s expert’s appraisal was that the business was able to obtain a $10 million loan during the time of the valuation. Additionally, the appellate court affirmed that the entire value of the business was community property.
Court OKs including PPP loan in cash flows for CCF
In a Vermont divorce case, the valuation expert for the husband valued his business by excluding proceeds from a Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loan as a one-time windfall for purposes of a capitalized cash flow (CCF) analysis.
Griggs v. Griggs
The husband appealed this Vermont divorce case to the State Supreme Court inter alia to challenge the inclusion of PPP loan proceeds by the wife’s expert in determining the cash flows of the husband’s electrician services business for purposes of determining a value of the business using the capitalization of earnings method. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower trial court on this issue and allowed the PPP proceeds to be included in the cash flows.
Vermont Supreme Court Allows Inclusion of PPP Proceeds in Cap Earnings Cash Flow for Determination of Value
The husband appealed this Vermont divorce case to the State Supreme Court inter alia to challenge the inclusion of PPP loan proceeds by the wife’s expert in determining the cash flows of the husband’s electrician services business for purposes of determining a value of the business using the capitalization of earnings method. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower trial court on this issue and allowed the PPP proceeds to be included in the cash flows.
Atherton v. Atherton
Arkansas Court of Appeals rejects claim by owner of nonprofessional business that any value in business represents personal goodwill attributable to him; court says concept of personal goodwill has not been extended to nonprofessional business “such as the one involved here.”
Arkansas Court Clarifies What Sort of Businesses Can Have Personal Goodwill
Arkansas Court of Appeals rejects claim by owner of nonprofessional business that any value in business represents personal goodwill attributable to him; court says concept of personal goodwill has not been extended to nonprofessional business “such as the one involved here.”
Goodman v. Goodman
Appeals court upholds trial court’s finding of enterprise goodwill, finding husband’s habit of periodically placing business assets in his children’s names as well as wife’s significant involvement in the business indicate business was “transferable.”