Home Family Law Husband Not Allowed to Supply Vendor's Opinion of Enterprise Worth

Husband Not Allowed to Supply Vendor’s Opinion of Enterprise Worth

Tennessee case abstract on enterprise valuation proof in divorce.

Mitzi Sue Garner v. Robert Allen Garner

The spouse on this Hamilton County, Tennessee, sued for divorce in 2009 after being married in 1977.  The case went to trial in 2010.  The couple co-owned a gymnasium that the husband operated, and the spouse labored at a veterinary clinic.  One of many foremost points at trial was the worth of the gymnasium.  Particularly, testimony centered on money transactions.  The husband’s earnings, for youngster assist functions, was set at $2400 per 30 days.  After numerous motions, this was upped to $4583 per 30 days.

The husband introduced an attraction, however the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal as a result of the judgment was not last, since parenting time had not been finalized.  After numerous motions, the trial courtroom lastly entered a last order in 2019.  The husband was ordered to pay youngster assist of $241 per 30 days, and he filed one other attraction with the Tennessee Courtroom of Appeals.

The husband’s argument on attraction was that the worth of the gymnasium had not been accurately decided.  Particularly, the husband, who didn’t have an legal professional at trial, tried to supply the testimony of Lawrence Day, the one who had bought him the gymnasium.  This testimony had been excluded as a result of there was no basis for his knowledgeable testimony on the difficulty of worth.  Each the spouse and husband had been allowed to supply their opinion as to worth, since they have been homeowners.  The husband argued that Mr. Day’s testimony ought to have been allowed, since he held a mortgage on the property, and thus had some possession curiosity.

Sadly, the husband had not made a suggestion of proof as to what the witness would have mentioned.  And the husband didn’t testify as to his private opinion of the worth.  For that motive, the appeals courtroom affirmed the decrease courtroom’s holding.

The appeals courtroom did maintain that the husband ought to have been allowed extra latitude in cross examination as to the spouse’s valuation, specifically, her reliance upon a tax appraisal.  However it discovered that this didn’t rise to the extent of reversible error.

After reviewing the opposite points within the case, the Courtroom of Appeals affirmed and remanded the case for assortment of prices.  It assessed the prices of attraction in opposition to the husband.

No. E2019-01420-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. July 29,  2020).

See unique opinion for actual language.  Authorized citations omitted.

To be taught extra, see Business Valuation in Tennessee Divorce.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Most Popular

Purchaser’s Regret After the Marital Dissolution Settlement is Signed

Thanks, Joe for this nice weblog put up. Reformation or rescission is all the time a difficult authorized matter. Most judges hate to reopen...

Enterprise Horror Tales: Curse of the Aggressive Lawyer

October 27, 2020/ Larry Donahue / Business Law, Business Tips, Lawsuit, Resolving Disputes, Small Business, Strategic Planning / 0 comments Beware what monetary hazard lurks...

Insurance coverage Provider’s Obligation to Defend a PRP in New Jersey

Insured coverage holders usually purchase insurance coverage to safe two main obligations from an insurance coverage service once they turn out to be the...

Supreme Courtroom Expands Enforceability of Arbitration Insurance policies in New Jersey Employment Legislation Determination

The New Jersey Supreme Court as soon as once more expanded  the enforceability of arbitration agreements underneath New Jersey employment law.  In its opinion...

Recent Comments