Tennessee case abstract on enterprise valuation proof in divorce.
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 fitness center that the husband operated, and the spouse labored at a veterinary clinic. One of many predominant points at trial was the worth of the fitness center. Specifically, testimony targeted on money transactions. The husband’s revenue, for little one help functions, was set at $2400 per 30 days. After varied motions, this was upped to $4583 per 30 days.
The husband introduced an enchantment, however the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal as a result of the judgment was not ultimate, since parenting time had not been finalized. After varied motions, the trial courtroom lastly entered a ultimate order in 2019. The husband was ordered to pay little one help of $241 per 30 days, and he filed one other enchantment with the Tennessee Court docket of Appeals.
The husband’s argument on enchantment was that the worth of the fitness center had not been appropriately decided. Specifically, the husband, who didn’t have an lawyer at trial, tried to supply the testimony of Lawrence Day, the one who had bought him the fitness center. This testimony had been excluded as a result of there was no basis for his professional testimony on the problem of worth. Each the spouse and husband had been allowed to supply their opinion as to worth, since they have been house owners. 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 stated. And the husband didn’t testify as to his private opinion of the worth. For that cause, 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. But it surely discovered that this didn’t rise to the extent of reversible error.
After reviewing the opposite points within the case, the Court docket of Appeals affirmed and remanded the case for assortment of prices. It assessed the prices of enchantment towards the husband.
No. E2019-01420-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. July 29, 2020).
See authentic opinion for precise language. Authorized citations omitted.
To study extra, see Business Valuation in Tennessee Divorce.