Trial court did not err in finding that the prior stock sale between brothers, governed by the shareholder’s agreement, was not indicative of the value of the stock. The buy-out agreement did not replicate an arm’s length transaction.
Trial court affirmed where valuing car at a “middle value.” The court did not improperly average the values submitted – rather the court considered the purchase price and restoration efforts.
(1) Fair market value is proper method of valuing property. (2) Owner is competent to give opinion evidence as to value of his own property.
Trial court can use real estate tax bill over appraisal by real estate broker.
Fair market value requires consideration of what factors buyers and sellers find relevant when negotiating a deal. Disadvantages or liabilities of ownership may dramatically affect the fair market value.
Replacement cost minus depreciation is permissible method of deriving fair market value.
Arm’s-length sale price is best indicator to determine fair market value for property tax purposes and approach that considers other factors is error as matter of law.
Trial court was authorized to accept wife’s appraisal because it was part of her financial disclosure statement.
Where court accepted value of party as estimated in F.D. over testimony of qualified expert, the court must give an explanation.
(1) Fair market value is proper method of valuing property for purposes of divorce; (2) Depreciation is deductible partly because some assets do not last forever and must be replaced. No abuse of discretion for valuing equipment according to book value, or its ability to generate tax deductions.
Appraisal need not be accompanied by an offer to purchase – an appraiser is not required to submit an offer.
Value of property not affected by speculative possibilities of road being constructed.
Trial court erred in dividing stock in kind. Where there are sufficient assets, any form of joint control or ownership of assets by divorced people should be avoided. The elimination of the source of strife and friction is sought and the financial affairs of divorced parties separated as far as possible.
Trial court committed error by factoring hypothetical real estate commission into the value of home.
Valuation of cars by blue book affirmed as it is a recognized source.
Valuation of stock as reported to IRS as gifts is deemed valid for divorce purposes.
NADA appraisal from web site is admissible as hearsay exception for “[m]arket quotations, tabulations, lists, directories or other published compilations, generally used and relied upon by the public or by person in particular occupations.”
Trial court reversed by using Zillow to value real estate, since the court went outside the evidence and introduced its own evidence.
Kelly Blue Book valuation for car was admissible as within hearsay exception for “market quotations…”
Trial court erred in valuing corporation other than for amount husband paid his partner’s widow for 50% of the corporation upon the partner’s death.