Former Wife Argues Trial Court Erred In Its Valuation Of The Family Business

Valuation of assets and property is a key aspect of a divorce trial. When it comes time to divide the marital estate, the court must consider the testimony of valuation experts who provide opinions on the value of key assets. In the case of Athea v. Athea, the couple was fighting over a business that owns and operates modern retail design furniture stores throughout the United States. At the end of the divorce trial, the court issued a very thorough 82-page amended final judgment adjudicating all issues raised by the parties. The wife appealed and the husband cross-appealed.

On appeal, the former wife argued that the trial court erred in its valuation of assets when equitably distributing the marital estate. Specifically, she was concerned that the trial court undervalued the former husband’s business. The appeals court determined that the trial court employed competent substantial evidence to support its findings. In arriving at its valuation, the trial court relied on testimony from the former husband’s business valuation expert. The appeals court found that the testimony was credible and that the trial court did not err in valuating the business.

Evidence of imputed income 

Although she lost the argument on the valuation of the business, the appeals court did find an error. The trial court imputed a net monthly income to the former wife in the amount of $3,333.33. The wife claimed this was an error. The appeals court found that the trial court lacked substantial evidence to impute such an income to her. It is a well-established precedent that “any calculation as to the amount of imputed income must consider evidence of the ‘prevailing earnings level in the community.’”

The former husband’s CPA testified that she was not a vocational expert and did not have information concerning the availability of specific jobs in the area that the former wife lived. She did not conduct any analysis of the local job market and did not have information concerning the prevailing wages in the community. Courts require “particularized findings regarding work history, occupational qualifications, and the current job market in the community to support the imputation of income.” The appeals court found that the trial court did not provide those particularized findings. The appeals court, therefore, found that the trial court erred when imputing $3333.33 in income to the former wife. The appeals court thus reduced the amount of imputed income assigned to the former wife to $1,733.33.

Talk to a Tampa, FL Divorce Lawyer Today 

Faulkner Law Group, PLLC helps married couples untie the knot and pursue a divorce. We can help with all aspects of your divorce including equitable distribution, alimony, child custody, and child support. Call our Tampa family lawyers to schedule an appointment, and we can begin discussing your goals right away.

Source:

casetext.com/case/athea-v-athea-4?q=dissolution%20of%20marriage%202024&jxs=flsct,flapp&sort=relevance&p=1&type=case&tab=keyword