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 fundamental points at trial was the worth of the gymnasium.  Particularly, testimony centered on money transactions.  The husband’s revenue, for youngster assist 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 ultimate, since parenting time had not been finalized.  After numerous motions, the trial court docket lastly entered a ultimate order in 2019.  The husband was ordered to pay youngster assist of $241 monthly, and he filed one other attraction with the Tennessee Court docket 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 offered him the gymnasium.  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 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 proposal 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 motive, the appeals court docket affirmed the decrease court docket’s holding.

The appeals court docket 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 attraction towards the husband.

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

See unique opinion for precise 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