Ex-Spouse Will get $8K After Her Property is Left in Rat-Infested Storage

Tennessee case abstract on divorce post-divorce enforcement & lawyer’s charges Amanda Paige Ryan-Cothron v. William Michael Cothron The husband and spouse have been divorced in Rutherford County,...

Easy methods to Take care of Spousal Assist and Tax Penalties in BC?

I've a consumer who doesn't need to struggle or go to courtroom. So since he separated from his spouse, he has been quietly...

Free Digital Workshop for Tourism Centered Companies in New Mexico

October 20, 2020/ Kristy Donahue / Business Tips, Employee Management, Human Resources, Marketing, New Mexico, Small Business, Strategic Planning, Taxes / 0 comments Making ready...


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

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 health club that the husband operated, and the spouse labored at a veterinary clinic.  One of many principal points at trial was the worth of the health club.  Particularly, testimony centered on money transactions.  The husband’s revenue, for youngster assist 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 closing, since parenting time had not been finalized.  After varied motions, the trial court docket lastly entered a closing order in 2019.  The husband was ordered to pay youngster assist 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 health club had not been accurately decided.  Particularly, the husband, who didn’t have an lawyer at trial, tried to supply the testimony of Lawrence Day, the one that had bought him the health club.  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 stated.  And the husband didn’t testify as to his private opinion of the worth.  For that cause, 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.  However it 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 in opposition to the husband.

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

See unique opinion for actual language.  Authorized citations omitted.

To be taught extra, see Business Valuation in Tennessee Divorce.

- A word from our sposor -

Husband Not Allowed to Supply Vendor’s Opinion of Enterprise Worth