Supreme Court (Alaska) Affirms Trial Court Calculation of Active Appreciation
The Alaska Supreme Court made three rulings in this, but we focus the digest on the second ruling, that the trial court did not err in valuing the business’s active appreciation. The trial court’s explanation was reasonable and considered aspects of the reports. Each spouse appealed certain aspects of the trial court’s order dividing their property. The wife appealed that the trial court erred in valuing the active appreciation of the business, and the husband challenged the trial court’s valuation of the active appreciation of real property rented to the business. The supreme court affirmed the trial court property division in all aspects.
Ohio Trial Court Fails to Consider Expert Testimony—Appellate Court Remands
Miller v. Miller, 2024-Ohio-821 The husband, Craig Miller, appealed from an amended judgment decree of divorce. The appellate court reversed the trial court. Facts and procedural history. The parties married on June 15, 2004. The husband became an optometrist in 2004...
Appellate Court (Mississippi) Affirms That Goodwill Is Not a Marital Asset
Smith v. Smith, 2024 This case involved an appeal of a Chancery Court decision in a divorce case in Mississippi. The wife was the appellant in this case. Two major issues were on appeal. The first dealt with child custody, which we will not cover in this digest, and...
Appellate Court (California) Declines to Set Aside Appraisal and Decision of Arbitrator
Hardiman v. Woodlands Store, Inc., 2024 This appeal to the California Court of Appeal dealt with an appraisal of the plaintiffs’, Roy and Janet Hardiman’s, 15% interest in a grocery business the defendant, Woodlands Store Inc., owned and operated. The plaintiffs...