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: Goodwill
National Legal Research Group, Inc.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: McDiarmid v. McDiarmid, 649 A.2d 810 (D.C. 1994).
The good will of a law practice acquired during a marriage is marital property, but good will could not be included in the value of the husband's law partnership interest because the governing partnership agreement would preclude him from realizing a share of the firm's good will if he terminated his employment or sold his partnership interest.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

FLORIDA: Weinstock v. Weinstock, 634 So. 2d 775 (Fla. DCA 1994).
Inclusion of good will as a marital asset was improper because the evidence failed to establish a value for the good will apart from the husband's continued presence.
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

INDIANA: Yoon v. Yoon, 687 N.E.2d 201 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997).
The goodwill of the husband's sole medical practice was properly included in the marital estate.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

INDIANA: Berger v. Berger, 648 N.E.2d 378 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995).
The proceeds from a restrictive covenant ancillary to the sale of the husband's dental practice should be included in the marital estate to the extent that the payments were compensation for the good will of the practice.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

MARYLAND: Strauss v. Strauss, 101 Md. App. 490, 647 A.2d 818 (1994).
Reliance on testimony of the wife's expert regarding the value of good will for the husband's oral surgery practice was error, because the expert did not isolate the personal components of the good will value of the practice.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

MINNESOTA: Sweere v. Gilbert-Sweere, 534 N.W.2d 294 (Minn. Ct. App. 1995).
A former spouse who sells marital stock and receives a separate payment from the corporation in exchange for a noncompetition agreement may only treat as nonmarital property the portion of the noncompetition payment that compensates the spouse for restricting postmarital personal service.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

NEW JERSEY: Seiler v. Seiler, 308 N.J. Super. 474, 706 A.2d 249 (App. Div. 1998).
The goodwill generated by the husband as manager of a captive insurance agency belonged to the insurance company and could not be included as marital property.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

NEW YORK: Burns v. Burns, 84 N.Y.2d 369, 618 N.Y.S.2d 761 (1994).
The wife's proof of the value of the husband's interest in his law firm partnership should not have been limited to the value of his capital account, and she should have been allowed discovery to evaluate the value of his interest.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

NORTH CAROLINA: Carlson v. Carlson, ___ N.C. App. ___, 487 S.E.2d 784 (1997).
The trial court did not abuse its discretion by utilizing national salary statistics to calculate the goodwill component of the husband's medical practice.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

NORTH CAROLINA: Sharp v. Sharp, ___ N.C. App. ___, 449 S.E.2d 39 (1994).
The trial court did not err when it valued the husband's partnership interest in his law firm by adopting a valuation methodology that averaged the result of several different methodologies, where the wife had not presented evidence of an alternative methodology or valuation.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

PENNSYLVANIA: Gaydos v. Gaydos, ___ Pa. Super. ___, 693 A.2d 1368 (1997).
The professional goodwill in a solo practice must be valued and excluded from the marital estate, but the going-concern value of the business and its enterprise goodwill may be included as marital property.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

VIRGINIA: Howell v. Howell, ___ Va. App. ___, 523 S.E.2d 514 (2000).
Restrictive agreement that defined the value of the husband's partnership interest in a law firm did not control the existence of goodwill. The trial court could consider the money market fund established by the former husband after separation as marital property. The trial court could also require the husband to pay marital debt that increased after separation.
Subscription Read 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.