Massachusetts Divorce Cases / Business valuation
On this page we are compiling links to the full text of important Massachusetts Appellate Cases on Family Law and Divorce decided by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court and the Massachusetts Appeals Court.
These cases are for educational purpose only and should not be used for any official or legal purpose. Please consult official reports. Below you will be able to search for Massachusetts Appeals Court Slip Opinions and Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Slip Opinions relating to Business valuation.
Business valuation Cases in Massachusetts
Adams v. Adams, 459 Mass. 361 (2011): The husband’s partnership interest can be included in the marital estate for the purpose of property division. The proper method of valuation of the husband’s partnership interest is discounter capitalization of earnings to account for the fact that when the husband’s employment ends, his interest in the partnership also ends. Capitalization of income method is more appropriate where a perpetual stream of future income exists.
Bernier v. Bernier, 449 Mass. 774 (2007): Trial court did not abuse its discretion in this divorce action when it awarded the wife $275,000 per year in alimony as well as an additional $3,160.11 per week to cover the expenses of a horse farm which was awarded to the wife until the husband paid the wife in full for her interest in the parties S-corporations.
Maillet v. Maillet, 64 Mass. App. Ct. 683 (2005): The husband owned an S-corporation (a corporation individually owned through its shareholders), the earnings of which he reported on his Rule 401 financial statements. These Rule 401 financial statements were incorporated into the divorce judgment and were the basis of the child support payments to the wife. In the year following the divorce judgment, the husband asked the wife to sign off on a federal income tax return for the S-corporation. The husband's listed income on the tax return was far greater than what he listed in his financial statements, and the wife claimed that the husband had made fraudulent representations to minimize child support payments. The husband relied on a corporate accountant in preparing his financial statements, and although the wife had access to the accountant, the information he provided could have been potentially misrepresentative. As it seemed unclear whether fraud had been established through a "clear and convincing evidence" standard, the case was remanded to the probate court to determine if real misrepresentation had occurred.
Sahin v. Sahin, 435 Mass 396 (2001): The wife appealed from the Probate and Family Court's dismissal of her claim that the husband's misrepresentation regarding his business led to an unconscionable divorce judgment. She argued that she should have been granted relief from a divorce judgment entered more than one year ago pursuant to an independent equity action (Mass. R. Civ. P. 60(b)), fraud being perpetrated on the court (Mass. R. Civ. P. 60(b)), and to accomplish justice (Mass. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6)). The Supreme Judicial Court concluded that the wife did not present sufficient evidence to support her equity claim, the husband's conduct did not constitute fraud, and the claim did not qualify as an extraordinary circumstance outside of the existing reasons to vacate a judgment.