In a post-divorce action, it was not impermissible “double counting” to value the ex-husband’s business based on his reasonable compensation as opposed to actual compensation and then to calculate alimony based on the same excess salary that had been added back to business income, thus increasing the value of the corporate assets for which ex-wife already had received her share in equitable distribution.
Trial court was not obligated to value company based on income used by Wife’s expert.
No double counting for considering rental income for maintenance, even though the valution of the income-producing property took rent into account.
Trial court reversed for finding that awarding wife a distributive award for value of medical practices would be double counting because the value was premised on the income stream. The appellate court found that the income stream was not “totally indistinguishable” from the asset.
Profit sharing cannot be included an principal asset in making a division of estate and then also as an income item to be considered in awarding alimony.
Where the accounts receivable were viewed as salary, it would have been error to include them in the assets available for distribution.
A\R are assets of the service corp. unless excluded by withdrawal agreement. However, double counting of A/R is error.
Court properly exercised discretion by treating accounts receivable of husband’s medical practice as income, rather than as property. They cannot be counted as both.
Asset and its income stream may not be counted both as an asset in the property division and as part of the payor’s income from which support is paid.
Retirement benefit cannot be double counted, but increases because of post-divorce employment is available for post-divorce maintenance.