|
|
|
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.
Read More About This CaseFLORIDA: 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.
Read More About This CaseILLINOIS: 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.
Read More About This CaseINDIANA: 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.
Read More About This CaseINDIANA: 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.
Read More About This CaseMARYLAND: 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.
Read More About This CaseMINNESOTA: 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.
Read More About This CaseNEW 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.
Read More About This CaseNEW 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.
Read More About This CaseNORTH 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.
Read More About This CaseNORTH 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.
Read More About This CasePENNSYLVANIA: 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.
Read More About This CaseVIRGINIA: 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.
Read More About This CaseGo to: Cases of Interest by Category
Go to: Previous Page
| 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. |