Correctly Cammenga v. Cammenga, 2024 This case was returned to the Court of Appeals in order for the court “to make necessary factual findings related to the value of a tax loss carryforward, to alleged violations of a status quo order, and to the court’s decision to...

Kemmett v. Kemmett, 2024 The Supreme Court of North Dakota reviewed the decree and decisions of the district court in this divorce action. The supreme court upheld the valuation of certain land as it was not clearly erroneous because it was within the range of...

Granada v. Rojas, 2024-Ohio-1272; 2024 Adriana Granada appealed from the final decree following her divorce from Israel Rojas. The appellate court affirmed the decision of the trial court. Factual and procedural history.  In November 2020, Rojas filed for divorce...

Bergquist v. Bergquist, 2024 Trishia Bergquist (the wife) appealed the Indiana Stueben County Circuit Court’s dissolution decree to the Indiana Court of Appeals. Several issues were raised. This digest covers the issue as to whether the circuit court abused its...

In this appeal of a divorce case in Ohio, the appellate court affirmed that the trial court, in having independently determined the value of the husband’s business without having instructed the parties to produce evidence to support the value, did not abuse its discretion. The wife did not dispute the specificities of the trial court’s valuation nor challenge the credibility of the husband’s testimony.

Boston Ret. Sys. v. Uber Techs., Inc., 2024. The lead plaintiff, Boston Retirement System filed a motion to compel production of unredacted versions of 28 documents nonparty PricewaterhouseCoopers produced. Uber Technologies Inc. asserted that the work product doctrine shielded the redacted portions. The documents were in four categories: impairment assessments, forensic memoranda, emails, and management representation letters. The court ordered Boston Retirement System to provide one example of each category one, two, and four for in camera review. Uber was ordered to provide unredacted copies of all emails at issue.

Palkon v. Maffei, 2024 This was a suit where the minority shareholders challenged the conversion of two Delaware corporations into Nevada corporations with the controlling shareholder delivering the deciding vote the admitted purpose of which was reducing potential...

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.

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...

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...