Valuation of Assets
NORTH CAROLINA: Urciolo v. Urciolo, ___ N.C. App. ___, 601 S.E.2d 905 (2004).
The trial court did not err by valuing a motorcycle using the price paid at the time of purchase, a few months before separation, and rejecting a standardized valuation as of the date of separation. The purchase price took into account customized additions which the standardized valuation did not consider. The trial court erred by making a monetary award without taking into account a statutory presumption favoring division in kind.
Read More About This Case
NORTH CAROLINA: Fitzgerald v. Fitzgerald, ___ N.C. App. ___, 588 S.E.2d 517 (2003).
Even though the husband failed to list the wife's profit-sharing plan as a marital asset in the trial court's pre-trial order, the court still erred by failing to treat the plan as marital property, where the wife did not disclose the existence of the plan until the divorce hearing. Appraisals dated one and three years after the proper date of valuation were not reliable valuation evidence. The trial court erred by failing to consider post-separation appreciation in marital property as a factor in dividing the marital estate. The trial court erred by valuing the husband's medical practice without explaining its methodology, even though its valuation was between the estimates of the parties' competing experts.
Read More About This Case
MINNESOTA: Bender v. Bender, 671 N.W.2d 602 (Minn. Ct. App. 2003).
The trial court properly valued certain assets as of March 31, 2001, even though the parties had stipulated to value them as of December 31, 2000. The market dropped sharply between the two dates.
Read More About This Case
OHIO: Jacobs v. Jacobs, 2003 Ohio 3466, 2003 WL 21500026 (Ct. App. 2003).
The trial court erred by failing to include in the value of a business non-goodwill intangible assets such as temporary investments and retained earnings. It also erred by applying a discount for bad debts twice to accounts receivable due within 120 days. The trial court did not err by refusing to find that the husband was guilty of dissipation, where his stock market losses resulted from poor investment decisions made in good faith and not from any desire to harm the wife. The trial court did not err in holding that a transfer of a car to the wife was intended as a gift, even though the husband asked the wife if she was having an affair before making the gift, and the wife untruthfully answered "no."
Read More About This Case
VIRGINIA: Hoebelheinrich v. Hoebelheinrich, 43 Va. App. 543, 600 S.E.2d 152 (2004).
The trial court did not err in classifying as marital property the institutional goodwill of the husband's medical practice. The amount treated as marital property did not improperly include the personal goodwill of the husband. The trial court properly refused to apply a minority discount in valuing the practice, as there was no evidence that a sale of the practice was imminent. The trial court properly rejected the husband's proposed valuations for personal property, as those valuations were based upon replacement cost and not fair market value.
Read More About This Case
NEW YORK: K. v. B., ___ A.D.3d ___, 786 N.Y.S.2d 76 (2004).
The trial court did not err in awarding 65% of the marital estate to a wife who worked full time as an attorney, contributing significantly more value to the marriage than did the husband, and who was also the primary homemaker. The court did not err in failing to value the contingent fees of the wife's law practice, as the husband had not introduced sufficient valuation evidence.
Read More About This Case
NEW YORK: K. v. B., ___ A.D.3d ___, 786 N.Y.S.2d 76 (2004).
The trial court did not err in awarding 65% of the marital estate to a wife who worked full time as an attorney, contributing significantly more value to the marriage than did the husband, and who was also the primary homemaker. The court did not err in failing to value the contingent fees of the wife's law practice, as the husband had not introduced sufficient valuation evidence.
Read More About This Case
NORTH CAROLINA: Franks v. Franks, ____ N.C. App. ____, 571 S.E.2d 276 (2002).
The wife was not absolutely bound to the value for the husband's business stated on her inventory affidavit, where the husband had reasonable notice that the wife's expert would testify to a higher value. The trial court did not err by choosing to accept the value submitted by the wife's expert and to reject the value submitted by the husband himself, even though the husband was owner and operator of the business.
Read More About This Case
NORTH DAKOTA: Sommers v. Sommers, 660 N.W.2d 586 (N.D. 2003).
The trial court erred as a matter of law by valuing an orthodontic practice at its liquidation value.
Read More About This Case
- All Valuation of Assets Cases of Interest
- Recent Cases of Interest
|
|
