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.
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.
Nix v. Nix
This case concerned an appeal of a trial court opinion in a divorce case in Indiana. The trial court based the value of a warehousing and logistics business on an offer to purchase the business the daughter of the divorcing parties presented at trial. The mother, the owner operator of the business, rejected the offer, made prior to the filing for dissolution of marriage. The appellate court remanded the decision of the trial court for revaluation of the business with instructions to determine a value within the valuation conclusions experts submitted for each party at trial.
Indiana Appellate Court Remands Value of Business—Trial Court Value Based on a Defective Offer to Purchase
This case concerned an appeal of a trial court opinion in a divorce case in Indiana. The trial court based the value of a warehousing and logistics business on an offer to purchase the business the daughter of the divorcing parties presented at trial. The mother, the owner operator of the business, rejected the offer, made prior to the filing for dissolution of marriage. The appellate court remanded the decision of the trial court for revaluation of the business with instructions to determine a value within the valuation conclusions experts submitted for each party at trial.
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.
California Appellate Court Affirms That the Marital Settlement Agreement Should Not Be Set Aside for Alleged Inadequate Disclosures
The husband and wife entered into a settlement agreement as to their divorce that was included in the trial court’s judgment of dissolution. The wife thereafter asked the trial court to set the agreement aside due to, among other things, the husband’s failure to disclose his ownership interests in various businesses. The appellate court found the evidence for her motion(s) to be lacking and affirmed the trial court.
In re Hettinga
The husband and wife entered into a settlement agreement as to their divorce that was included in the trial court’s judgment of dissolution. The wife thereafter asked the trial court to set the agreement aside due to, among other things, the husband’s failure to disclose his ownership interests in various businesses. The appellate court found the evidence for her motion(s) to be lacking and affirmed the trial court.
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.
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.
Jayawardena v. Daka
This case involved a shareholder dispute among four shareholders of a physician practice (Ferncreek Cardiology PA) and two real estate LLCs. There were buy-sell provisions for each of the three entities. As to Ferncreek, the buy-sell provision was essentially an increase in book value provision, as the regular account determined in “good faith.” Payment provisions were also included in the agreement. The two real estate LLCs had a buy-sell provision that provided for either a single agreed-upon appraiser or three appraisers if no agreement was made. The plaintiff made the decision to exit the practice, triggering the buy-sell provisions. The parties were not able to agree on certain provisions as they worked through the buy-sell agreements. The trial court entered partial summary judgments on some claims of both parties. This appeal dealt with these partial summary judgments and was filed by the plaintiff.
North Carolina Appeals Court Affirms Decisions on Value of Businesses Under Buy-Sell Agreements
This case involved a shareholder dispute among four shareholders of a physician practice (Ferncreek Cardiology PA) and two real estate LLCs. There were buy-sell provisions for each of the three entities. As to Ferncreek, the buy-sell provision was essentially an increase in book value provision, as the regular account determined in “good faith.” Payment provisions were also included in the agreement. The two real estate LLCs had a buy-sell provision that provided for either a single agreed-upon appraiser or three appraisers if no agreement was made. The plaintiff made the decision to exit the practice, triggering the buy-sell provisions. The parties were not able to agree on certain provisions as they worked through the buy-sell agreements. The trial court entered partial summary judgments on some claims of both parties. This appeal dealt with these partial summary judgments and was filed by the plaintiff.
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.
Valuing a minority interest with no information on the subject company
In a Maryland divorce case, neither valuation expert had any documents or financial information from the husband’s ambulatory surgical center (ASC) in which he owned a small interest.
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.”
Court uses old transaction to value a dental practice
In a North Carolina divorce case, the wife’s stake in a dental practice was valued based on what she paid for it two years before she and her husband separated in 2015 (the valuation date).
Furrer v. Siegel & Rouhana, LLC
A name attorney in a Maryland law firm withdrew after having his license suspended. He sued the firm for compensation for his 26.5% interest in the firm. The firm countersued for damages related to his mistreatment of client accounts. The trial court determined a value of his interest and also determined damages that the attorney owed the firm for his mistreatment of client accounts. The appellate court affirmed the damages but remanded the valuation of the 26.5% interest.
Maryland Appellate Court Remands for Valuation of Withdrawing Member’s Interest in Law Firm and Affirms Damages Award
A name attorney in a Maryland law firm withdrew after having his license suspended. He sued the firm for compensation for his 26.5% interest in the firm. The firm countersued for damages related to his mistreatment of client accounts. The trial court determined a value of his interest and also determined damages that the attorney owed the firm for his mistreatment of client accounts. The appellate court affirmed the damages but remanded the valuation of the 26.5% interest.