BV News and Trends February 2024
A monthly roundup of key developments of interest to business valuation experts.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Pereira method used for marital interest in construction firm
In a Nevada divorce case, the court considered whether the valuation of the marital portion of a separate property business should be calculated under the Pereira or Van Camp approach.
BV News and Trends May 2023
A monthly roundup of key developments of interest to business valuation experts.
Mamone v. Mamone
The Nevada appellate court affirmed the trial court’s use of the Pereira method of determining the value of separate property included in the total value of the husband’s business. It was clear that the value increase in the business during the marriage was due in large part to the efforts of the husband. The “excess value” of the business over the separate property value was included in the community property. The appellate court also affirmed the ruling of the trial court that no community expenses incurred during the marriage were paid from the separate property of the husband and the husband was, therefore, not entitled to any reimbursement of those community expenses.
Nevada Appellate Court Affirms Value of Husband’s Business and His Separate Property Value in the Business
The Nevada appellate court affirmed the trial court’s use of the Pereira method of determining the value of separate property included in the total value of the husband’s business. It was clear that the value increase in the business during the marriage was due in large part to the efforts of the husband. The “excess value” of the business over the separate property value was included in the community property. The appellate court also affirmed the ruling of the trial court that no community expenses incurred during the marriage were paid from the separate property of the husband and the husband was, therefore, not entitled to any reimbursement of those community expenses.
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.
More courts KO DLOM when business won’t be sold
Keep an eye out for courts in more states deciding to eliminate a discount for lack of marketability (DLOM) depending on whether the business will be sold.
Lamm v. Preston
This was a divorce case with a complex set of issues regarding the marital estate and the businesses of the parties. This Supreme Court of Idaho case and opinion related to one of the businesses, Black Sage Acquisition LLC, in which the couple owned 25%. The magistrate court determined the value of Black Sage Acquisition as $163,373 based on fair market value. The remaining value was determined to be personal goodwill. The Supreme Court (Idaho) affirmed the decision of the district court, which upheld the magistrate court.
Idaho Supreme Court Affirms Magistrate Judge’s Opinion Regarding Personal Goodwill
This was a divorce case with a complex set of issues regarding the marital estate and the businesses of the parties. This Supreme Court of Idaho case and opinion related to one of the businesses, Black Sage Acquisition LLC, in which the couple owned 25%. The magistrate court determined the value of Black Sage Acquisition as $163,373 based on fair market value. The remaining value was determined to be personal goodwill. The Supreme Court (Idaho) affirmed the decision of the district court, which upheld the magistrate court.
Fair v. Fair
The primary issue in this appeal was the value of Surgical Imaging Specialists Inc. (SIS), a subchapter S corporation that the parties formed in 2002. Stephan Fair, the husband, was the sole registered shareholder of SIS. Darlene Fair, the wife, was listed on all tax returns as an equal owner. The trial court awarded all community property interest to the husband and eliminated 25% of SIS’ goodwill as personal goodwill. On appeal, the husband contended that the trial court undervalued the personal goodwill discount and failed to apply a discount for lack of marketability. The husband also appealed the separate property award of an IRA account and a reimbursement to the wife for additional salary payments made by SIS to the husband. The court of appeal affirmed the trial court value of SIS, remanded the issue of IRA gains, and affirmed the reimbursement for additional salary payments.
Appellate Court Rules on the Value of the Marital Business as to Personal Goodwill, Minority, Liquidity, and Marketability Discounts
The primary issue in this appeal was the value of Surgical Imaging Specialists Inc. (SIS), a subchapter S corporation that the parties formed in 2002. Stephan Fair, the husband, was the sole registered shareholder of SIS. Darlene Fair, the wife, was listed on all tax returns as an equal owner. The trial court awarded all community property interest to the husband and eliminated 25% of SIS’ goodwill as personal goodwill. On appeal, the husband contended that the trial court undervalued the personal goodwill discount and failed to apply a discount for lack of marketability. The husband also appealed the separate property award of an IRA account and a reimbursement to the wife for additional salary payments made by SIS to the husband. The court of appeal affirmed the trial court value of SIS, remanded the issue of IRA gains, and affirmed the reimbursement for additional salary payments.
Active and Passive Appreciation in Valuation: Finding the Line
Breaking up is hard, but harder still is appropriating the appreciation of the marital estate during the marriage. The most troubling issue with active and passive appreciation in divorce cases is applying a method based on sound theory, good empirical evidence, and a clear common-sense framework. Ashok Abbott demonstrates a methodology and supporting evidence to isolate passive appreciation successfully. By working through a practice-ready example, you’ll be sure to come away with a new appreciation ...
Larchick v. Pollock
The trial court (TC) in this case excluded the evidence of a business valuation expert because he had submitted a calculation of value report and was then asked to testify to it. The expert self-admitted that he would not testify to a calculation of value and had explained in his engagement letter that a valuation engagement would be required for testimony. Despite the exclusion by the TC and the self-admission of the inadequacy of a calculation of value for testimony purposes, the appellate court nevertheless remanded the case in part to determine whether the calculation of value met the requirements of Arizona Rule 702 for allowable evidence.
Arizona Appeals Court Says a Calculation of Value Is Not Per Se Unacceptable
The trial court (TC) in this case excluded the evidence of a business valuation expert because he had submitted a calculation of value report and was then asked to testify to it. The expert self-admitted that he would not testify to a calculation of value and had explained in his engagement letter that a valuation engagement would be required for testimony. Despite the exclusion by the TC and the self-admission of the inadequacy of a calculation of value for testimony purposes, the appellate court nevertheless remanded the case in part to determine whether the calculation of value met the requirements of Arizona Rule 702 for allowable evidence.