Where husband offered no credible valuation of his business’s value, the court’s determination of value based on wife’s expert was not erroneous.
(1) Court did not abuse its discretion by accepting excess earnings method of valuation despite buy/sell agreement and (2) No abuse of discretion in treating accounts receivable as an asset.
Accepting Bonfield’s valuation of canning business not clearly erroneous. Bonfield used weighted average earnings record and used net book value to calculate the asset value.
Husband’s testimony alone insufficient to warrant discount factor for non-marketability and minority position. Expert opinion needed.
Discount for lack of control was proper.
Generally, value of interest in professional partnership is consequences of withdrawing, such as a buy out agreement. Here, where there was no agreement, court must consider the accounts receivable.
Accounts receivable and secured accounts receivable were improperly excluded from marital estate.
(1) 25% discount for minority interest and lack of marketability affirmed and (2) Presumption that buy-sell controls does not apply where it does not fix a specified price, but only an ongoing process for determining price.
(1) Valuation of professional partnership: focus is on monetary consequence if a partner withdraws; (2) Cross-purchase agreements can be considered in determining a partnerships worth and (3) A pet boarding business is a commercial business, not a professional partnership.
Appellate court affirmed trial court’s valuation of printing company, including using actual rent paid rather than a rent negotiated at arm’s length.
Podiatry practice properly valued by capitalizing future earnings and discounting for lack of marketability.
Trial court affirmed for using asset-based valuation method for trucking business as opposed to income-based approach.
Trial court properly distributed minority shares in business to each party where court found that valuation was too speculative.
Net asset method, rather than the historical method, was properly used to determine the effective tax rate to apply to the value of a holding company.
Valuation of dental practice based on capitalization of earnings is affirmed.
No discount for potential capital gains for business as there was no evidence of a sale in the near future.
Valuing orthodontic practice “as is.” Liquidation value reversed because husband had no plans to liquidate his practice.
No discount for minority control where husband had minority interest, but had the ability to control operations. Also, no discount because value was determined by value of underlying assets.
Only value of drywalling business was the ability to generate an income for Husband to pay support.
Trial court erred in using C-Corp tax rates for an S-Corporation. Also, the trial court erred in using “key man” and marketability discounts where the businesses (supermarkets) were not going to be sold.