This appeal in a California court involved a dispute over an appraisal of the plaintiffs’ 15% interest in a grocery store the defendant operated. The plaintiffs alleged that the award of the superior court was obtained by fraud and that the arbitrator prejudiced their rights.
View Case Digest View Case
Tennessee Appeals Court Defers to Trial Court on DLOM Use in Divorce
In context of determining appreciation in value, appeals court says trial court did not err when it applied DLOM in valuing partial interests in businesses representing wife’s separate property; DLOM use is within trial court’s discretion and depends on facts of the case.
Appeals Court Signs Off on ‘Slight’ DLOM in Minority Interest Valuation
Appeals court says use of DLOM in valuing interest for divorce depends on interest’s characteristics not owner’s intent to sell the interest, but appeals court affirms trial court’s decision to apply “slight” or no DLOM based on intent to sell analysis.
Fuller v. Fuller
Appeals court says trail income generated by solo financial planning practice is different from professional goodwill; it can be sold separately or assigned, and there exists a formula for valuing it; trial court was right to consider it a marital asset.
Cela v. Cela
The Appellate Court (AC) upheld the trial court’s decision to accept the value under the income approach adjusted for the exclusion of personal goodwill. The expert for the wife (business owner) had used the asset approach reasoning that all goodwill was personal. The trial court and the AC rejected that approach.
Grant v. Grant
Appeals court says use of DLOM in valuing interest for divorce depends on interest’s characteristics not owner’s intent to sell the interest, but appeals court affirms trial court’s decision to apply “slight” or no DLOM based on intent to sell analysis.
Lucchesi v. Lucchesi
Appeals court upholds ruling that appreciation in value of husband’s interest in family liquor business is marital asset; trial court carefully analyzed husband’s role in company to find he “substantially contributed” to the increase and husband stipulated to wife’s substantial contribution.
Raley v. Brinkman
In LLC member buyout dispute, the Court of Appeals finds the term “fair value” does not contemplate the use of shareholder-level discounts. However, tax affecting is relevant evidence when determining the going-concern value of subject S corp. Trial court must consider evidence on tax affecting.
Hollis v. Hollis
One of the main issues in this appeal was how to classify the husband’s “book of business,” i.e., his client relationships, assets under management, and related income. The husband was a financial advisor for UBS. The wife contended the book of business had value that constituted a marital asset. The husband pointed out that UBS now took the position that a financial advisor who left the company cannot take any information with him or her. The court also noted that “deferred cash agreements” were actually bonuses that were marital assets. The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s decision to exclude the book of business from marital assets. The court also affirmed the trial court decision on payment of alimony to the wife “in futuro.”
Jensen v. Jensen
In deciding whether, in divorce, retained earnings in a closely held company that is separate property are includible in marital estate, appeals court creates presumption against inclusion and requires trial court to perform totality of circumstances review.