Absent any valuation, court uses book value
In an Ohio divorce case, neither the husband nor the wife engaged a valuation expert to appraise the family business, a small company that manufactures parts for racing cars, firearms, and paintball guns.
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.
Bergquist v. Bergquist
The appellate court (Indiana) found that the circuit court abused its discretion when valuing the wife’s business by not determining a value based on there being no evidence that would support such a value. The appellate court remanded the issue of the value of the business for determination based on evidence that would support it.
Indiana Appellate Court Remands to Revalue Wife’s Business Supported by the Evidence
The appellate court (Indiana) found that the circuit court abused its discretion when valuing the wife’s business by not determining a value based on there being no evidence that would support such a value. The appellate court remanded the issue of the value of the business for determination based on evidence that would support it.
West v. West
The wife appealed the valuation of the husband’s business, asserting that the trial court should have instructed the parties to submit evidence supporting the value instead of determining the value itself based on the evidence actually before the court. The trial court was affirmed.
Ohio Court of Appeals Affirms the Value of Husband’s Business Based on ‘the Evidence That Was Actually Before the Trial Court’
The wife appealed the valuation of the husband’s business, asserting that the trial court should have instructed the parties to submit evidence supporting the value instead of determining the value itself based on the evidence actually before the court. The trial court was affirmed.
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.
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.
BV News and Trends February 2024
A monthly roundup of key developments of interest to business valuation experts.
Neutral valuer does what he can with limited info
In a California divorce case, a court-appointed valuation expert was caught in the middle of a squabbling couple who didn’t provide enough information to value all the marital assets, including business interests.
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.
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 Hembree
In this appeal of a denied motion by the wife to set aside a marital settlement order, the appellate court affirmed the trial court. The wife claimed that the husband did not disclose a number of marital assets and misrepresented the values of certain marital assets. The trial court appointed its own expert for valuation of assets. The expert was unable to value a number of the assets for lack of information including a lack of proof of existence of some alleged assets.
Appellate Court (California) Affirms Denial of Wife’s Motion Claiming Missing Assets and Undervalued Assets
In this appeal of a denied motion by the wife to set aside a marital settlement order, the appellate court affirmed the trial court. The wife claimed that the husband did not disclose a number of marital assets and misrepresented the values of certain marital assets. The trial court appointed its own expert for valuation of assets. The expert was unable to value a number of the assets for lack of information including a lack of proof of existence of some alleged assets.
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.
In re Hussain
Both parties appealed this Illinois divorce case. While several issues were appealed, we focus on the value of the business and the determination of debts against the business. Since the trial court was not given any substantial evidence as to the value of the business, it determined the value on its own with limited information. The appellate court affirmed that value. Additionally, the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s disallowance of debts against the business.
Illinois Appellate Court Affirms Value of Business Where the Parties Provided No Evidence
Both parties appealed this Illinois divorce case. While several issues were appealed, we focus on the value of the business and the determination of debts against the business. Since the trial court was not given any substantial evidence as to the value of the value of the business, it determined the value on its own with limited information. The appellate court affirmed that value. Additionally, the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s disallowance of debts against the 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.