Expand the following panels for additional search options.

Tax rate slipup in dental practice valuation

In a North Dakota divorce case, both sides had expert valuations done on the husband’s dental practice.

Court excludes valuation expert by mistake

In an Ohio divorce matter, an appellate court has remanded a case back to the trial court because it “abused its discretion” when it excluded a valuation expert’s testimony and report.

Granada v. Rojas

In this Ohio divorce case, the appellate court affirmed the decision of the trial court to accept the value of the husband’s expert ($291,100) and reject the value of the wife’s expert ($840,000) as to the value of the marital business, an environmental remediation company. The husband’s value was well supported by the evidence.

Kemmett v. Kemmett

The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed several issues regarding the district court’s valuation of and distribution of the marital estate, including the determination of the value of the husband’s dental practice. The district court accepted the higher value of the wife’s expert’s value of the dental practice, noting that the wife’s witness was more credible than the husband’s witness.

Appellate Court (Ohio) Affirms Trial Court’s Acceptance of Husband’s Expert’s Value of Marital Business and Rejects Wife’s Expert’s Value

In this Ohio divorce case, the appellate court affirmed the decision of the trial court to accept the value of the husband’s expert ($291,100) and reject the value of the wife’s expert ($840,000) as to the value of the marital business, an environmental remediation company. The husband’s value was well supported by the evidence.

North Dakota Supreme Court Affirms Choice of Wife’s Expert’s Value of Dental Practice

The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed several issues regarding the district court’s valuation of and distribution of the marital estate, including the determination of the value of the husband’s dental practice. The district court accepted the higher value of the wife’s expert’s value of the dental practice, noting that the wife’s witness was more credible than the husband’s witness.

Miller v. Miller

In this Ohio divorce case, the trial court did not consider a valuation report of a competent expert the husband submitted. As such, “the trial court erred by sustaining an objection which appellant never made and by rendering judgment without considering all the evidence presented.” The trial court also erred by failing to reserve jurisdiction to modify the spousal maintenance award and not explaining why it refused to do so. The Appellate Court remanded on both of the above issues.

Ohio Trial Court Fails to Consider Expert Testimony—Appellate Court Remands

In this Ohio divorce case, the trial court did not consider a valuation report of a competent expert the husband submitted. As such, “the trial court erred by sustaining an objection which appellant never made and by rendering judgment without considering all the evidence presented.” The trial court also erred by failing to reserve jurisdiction to modify the spousal maintenance award and not explaining why it refused to do so. The Appellate Court remanded on both of the above issues.

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.

Husband vs. valuation expert, court splits the difference

In an Iowa divorce case, the wife engaged a CPA and valuation analyst to value the husband’s construction company, and he concluded a value of $1,020,597.

In re Marriage of Bainbridge

In this Iowa appellate case regarding a marital dissolution, the appellate court affirmed the decision of the trial court judge as to the value of the husband’s construction company. The wife’s expert used a valuation date of Dec. 31, 2020, versus trial date of December 2021 because of availability of information on the business.

Value of Husband’s Business Affirmed Based on Trial Judge’s Reasonable Discretion

In this Iowa appellate case regarding a marital dissolution, the appellate court affirmed the decision of the trial court judge as to the value of the husband’s construction company. The wife’s expert used a valuation date of Dec. 31, 2020, versus trial date of December 2021 because of availability of information on the business.

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.

Mikalacki v. Rubezic

In this Arizona marital dissolution case, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s acceptance of a calculation of value to determine the value of a couple’s law practice, awarded to the husband as part of the equitable distribution. Other matters not related to valuation issues were part of the appellate decision.

Arizona Appeals Court Affirms Trial Court’s Acceptance of a Calculation of Value

In this Arizona marital dissolution case, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s acceptance of a calculation of value to determine the value of a couple’s law practice, awarded to the husband as part of the equitable distribution. Other matters not related to valuation issues were part of the appellate decision.

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.

Connecticut Supreme Court clarifies double-counting rule

In a recent decision, the Connecticut Supreme Court clarified this jurisdiction approach to double counting (or double dipping).

Oudheusden v. Oudheusden (II)

In this divorce case, the Connecticut Supreme Court, overturning the appellate court, clarifies that awarding the nonowner spouse part of the value of the owner spouse’s businesses and basing alimony on income generated from the businesses is not impermissible double counting (double dipping).

Connecticut Supreme Court Clarifies Double Counting Rule in Divorce Cases Involving Valuation of a Business and Determination of Alimony

In this divorce case, the Connecticut Supreme Court, overturning the appellate court, clarifies that awarding the nonowner spouse part of the value of the owner spouse’s businesses and basing alimony on income generated from the businesses is not impermissible double counting (double dipping).

What family law practitioners need to know about COVID-19-related legislation

In a recent webinar, hosted by the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers (AAML), high-caliber presenters examined provisions in the mammoth COVID-19 federal legislation that are of particular significance to family law practitioners (attorneys and business valuators).

Oudheusden v. Oudheusden (I)

Appellate court remands because of trial court’s impermissible double dipping, where trial court awarded wife half of the fair market value of husband’s two solely owned businesses, which represented husband’s sole income stream, and based spousal support on annual income generated by businesses.

Connecticut Appellate Court Remands Because of Impermissible Double Dipping

Appellate court remands because of trial court’s impermissible double dipping, where trial court awarded wife half of the fair market value of husband’s two solely owned businesses, which represented husband’s sole income stream, and based spousal support on annual income generated by businesses.

1 - 25 of 32 results