Navigation Bar
< Home Page[About Us]


Why?
Subsription Access to some research documents (those we license from independent legal research companies) are restricted to subscribers. To gain access to ALL of these documents, you must subscribe. If you are already a subscriber, you may sign in before you begin your research. (Why Subscribe?)

Cases of Interest: Closely Held Corporations
National Legal Research Group, Inc.

ARIZONA: Gerow v. Covill, ___ Ariz. ___, 960 P.2d 55 (Ct. App. 1998).
The wife was properly recognized as the owner, between the husband and the wife, of one-half of a business incorporated in the name of a third party, where the evidence showed that the husband fraudulently conveyed the goodwill of his sole proprietorship to the business during the parties' dissolution proceedings.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

CALIFORNIA: In re Marriage of Stevenson, 20 Cal. App. 4th 250, 24 Cal. Rptr. 2d 411 (1993).
Small businesses, which rely heavily on the skill and reputation of the parties who operate them, must be valued at the time of separation not at the time of trial.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

COLORADO: In re Marriage of Banning, 971 P.2d 289 (Colo. Ct. App. 1998).
The trial court acted within its discretion by utilizing the excess-earnings method to value the husband's business and its goodwill.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

FLORIDA: Schiller v. Schiller, 625 So. 2d 856 (Fla. DCA 1993).
Trial court could not distribute husband's partnership interest to wife; instead, it could impose a charging lien on the partnership interest for a specific dollar amount.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

IDAHO: McAffee v. McAffee, 971 P.2d 734 (Idaho Ct. App. 1999).
The trial court did not err in valuing the husband's business based on the net value of its assets exclusive of goodwill, in view of evidence that the business was not a going concern.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

ILLINOIS: In re Marriage of Talty, 252 Ill. App. 3d 80, 623 N.E.2d 1041 (1993).
The trial court correctly included good will when valuing the husband's car dealership because, unlike a professional business where good will follows the individual professional, the dealership was an ongoing concern and the good will stayed with the business.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

NEW JERSEY: Castriota v. Castriota, 268 N.J. Super. 417, 633 A.2d 1024 (App. Div. 1993).
Husband's attempt to shelter his stock shares from the claims of judgment creditors by executing a shareholder agreement which absolutely barred all transfers of stock was void as against public interest.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

NEW YORK: Myers v. Myers, ___ A.D.2d ___, 680 N.Y.S.2d 690 (1998).
The husband's interest in a family heating oil business should be discounted by 25% because of the relatively limited market for a closely held corporation.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

NEW YORK: Dempster v. Dempster, ___ A.D.2d ___, 613 N.Y.S.2d 78 (1994).
The value of a business in reorganization should be based upon its future earning capability.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

NORTH CAROLINA: King v. King, ___ N.C. App. ___, 434 S.E.2d 669 (1993).
Husband's stock in family corporation was marital property where it was acquired by outright purchase during the marriage by borrowing money from the husband's mother; subsequent gifts from the husband's parents which reduced that debt did not create a separate property interest in the stock.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

WISCONSIN: Metz v. Keener, ___ Wis. 2d ___, 573 N.W.2d 865 (Ct. App. 1997).
The retained earnings fund of the wife's inherited corporation was properly included in the marital estate.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

Go to: Cases of Interest by Category
Go to: Previous Page


State Home Archives Bulletin Menu Chat Rooms Family Law Links Publications Menu Dictionary


About Us | Monthly Newsletter | Terms & Conditions | Privacy Statement | Contact Us | Advertising

The information contained on this page is not to be considered legal advice. A lawyer should always be consulted in regards to any legal matters. Divorce Source, Inc. is also not a referral service and does not endorse or recommend any third party individuals, companies, and/or services. Divorce Source, Inc. has made no judgment as to the qualifications, expertise or credentials of any participating professionals. Read our Terms & Conditions.

© 1996 - 2012 Divorce Source, Inc. All Rights Reserved.