Bloggers notice: Hazard is taken into account by a lot of Tennessee’s most skilled forensic accountants to a be a cornerstone case that every one forensic accountants and household attorneys ought to examine and know.
Hazard v. Hazard, 833 S.W.2nd 911 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1991)
Patrick and Myra Hazard had been married in 1980 On the time of the wedding, Mrs. Hazard had a Bachelor of Science diploma in Nursing, was additionally licensed by the College of Tennessee as a Pediatric Nurse Practitioner, and was employed as a Registered Nurse. Mr. Hazard was a medical physician in his ultimate 12 months of fellowship coaching in pulmonary drugs. After finishing the ultimate 12 months of his fellowship, he started a non-public observe, Memphis Essential Care Affiliation, which was centered round his medical specialty of pulmonary drugs with emphasis on vital care sufferers. The 1990 gross revenue of Memphis Essential Care Associates was roughly $600,000 and Mr. Hazard’s 1990 private gross revenue was roughly $200,000. Mrs. Hazard’s revenue as a registered nurse on the time of trial was roughly $35,000 per 12 months.
The Hazards had two youngsters collectively, and Mrs. Hazard assisted her husband working at his medical observe within the early years. Nevertheless, the period of time Mr. Hazard spent away from residence took its toll, and after ten years of marriage, Mrs. Hazard filed for divorce on the grounds of her husband’s insensitivity to the emotional wants of herself and her youngsters, along with the proof she discovered that he was having an extramarital affair. Mr. Hazard countered his spouse’s allegations by asserting that she was uncooperative and demanding and wouldn’t acknowledge his must deal with his sufferers. He claimed that his spouse had falsely accused him of infecting her with sexually transmitted illnesses and fascinating in extramarital affairs. Mr. Hazard additionally accused his spouse of getting had engaged in an extramarital affair after that they had separated.
On the divorce trial, the worth of Mr. Hazard’s medical observe, Memphis Essential Care Affiliation, was in dispute. Mr. Hazard’s knowledgeable witness, Paul King, was skilled within the sale of medical practices and acquainted with the conduct of the non-public observe of medication from a enterprise perspective. He had valued medical practices much like Mr. Hazard’s previously. He based mostly his $42,818 valuation of the observe upon the worth of the accounts receivable, money available, tools, fixtures, workplace tools and provides and the lively and inactive medical charts.
That determine was a lot lower than the $629,000 worth established by Mrs. Hazard’s knowledgeable witness, CPA Mickey Ison. Mr. Ison testified that he participated in enterprise evaluations for some years and was acquainted with the sale value of medical practices in Memphis. He opined that Mr. Hazard’s medical observe was a private service enterprise and believed that somebody who would purchase such a private service enterprise could be probably the most involved with annual gross revenues. Mr. Ison additional testified that he decided the worth of the medical observe based mostly on the honest market method, the worth asset method and the capitalization of revenue method, which have all been established as correct strategies for valuations of intently held firms. He additionally acknowledged that a part of his valuation of Mr. Hazard’s medical observe included good will, however claimed that the worth of the observe wouldn’t change even when there was no good will concerned. This conclusion was based mostly on his assumption that purchasers of non-public companies companies are involved primarily with gross receipts and never arduous property, in order that goodwill could be insignificant to such a purchaser.
The trial court docket valued Mr. Hazard’s medical observe at $200,000 after which awarded Mrs. Hazard half of that has her curiosity within the marital property. Mr. Hazard disagreed with the choice and filed an attraction. The Appellate Courtroom additionally disagreed with the trial court docket’s valuation of the medical observe on the premise that there was no proof within the document to help that discovering. The Appellate Courtroom listed the weather of a enterprise which needs to be taken under consideration when figuring out the worth of a enterprise with a purpose to make an equitable division of property upon divorce. These elements embody the bodily property such because the furnishings, buildings, library, and accounts receivable, since all these elements correctly weighted, ought to have a particular worth.
Nevertheless, the Appellate Courtroom didn’t imagine that skilled good will needs to be thought-about a part of the marital property. Though Mrs. Hazard’s knowledgeable, Mickey Ison, testified that he was not contemplating the long run revenue stream of the medical observe to find out the current day worth, the Courtroom believed that Mr. Ison used the gross revenue method to find out the worth of the medical observe, which essentially takes into consideration an expectation that the revenue will maintain true for the long run. The Courtroom famous that, contemplating the private nature of Mr. Hazard’s skilled observe and the speculative nature of future revenue, that method was inappropriate. Consequently, the Appellate Courtroom determined that the $42,818 medical observe appraisal supplied by Mr. Hazard’s knowledgeable was the extra cheap valuation quantity.
This publish is a part of a sequence, Appreciation of Separate Property: The Forensic Accountant’s Full Employment Act.
To be taught extra, go to When Professionals Divorce in Tennessee: Valuing Professional Practices.