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 fitness center that the husband operated, and the spouse labored at a veterinary clinic.  One of many major points at trial was the worth of the fitness center.  Particularly, testimony targeted on money transactions.  The husband’s revenue, for youngster help functions, was set at $2400 monthly.  After numerous motions, this was upped to $4583 monthly.

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 help of $241 monthly, and he filed one other attraction with the Tennessee Courtroom of Appeals.

The husband’s argument on attraction was that the worth of the fitness center had not been appropriately decided.  Particularly, the husband, who didn’t have an legal professional at trial, tried to supply the testimony of Lawrence Day, the one that 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 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 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, particularly, 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 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 authentic opinion for actual language.  Authorized citations omitted.

To study extra, see Business Valuation in Tennessee Divorce.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here