Stock is just one example of what might be considered a marital asset in a divorce case.  Stocks which are traded routinely on an exchange have a value that is easily determined.  What do you do however when you are dealing with stock in a privately held company, or stocks commonly referred to as penny stocks?  How do you go to go about valuing these types of stocks?

Bring your valuation experts to court, and present their full testimony.  For certain, a trial judge should not make a finding of value until all the evidence has been presented to the court regarding valuation.  Additionally, if both parties to the proceeding offer evidence of differing valuations, it is not appropriate for a court to take an average of the two conflicting valuations in order to assign a value to the stock.

This is precisely what the trial court did in the case of Tucker v. Tucker, 171 So3rd 158 (Florida 4th DCA 2015).  On appeal, the trial court was reversed.  The appellate court stated that “a trial court’s property valuation must be supported by competent, substantial evidence.”  The court referenced, in support of this principle, the case of Garcia v. Garcia, 25 So3rd 687 (Florida 4th DCA 2010).

When a court takes an average of two different valuations, the stock valuation was not not supported by competent, substantial evidence.

Florida law clearly prohibits the valuation of marital assets by splitting the difference between two  different valuations.

If you have a question regarding the valuation of your assets, you are entitled to a full and complete hearing to present all of the evidence that you have associated with the valuation of the particular asset.  The same holds true for the other party.  Anything short of a full evidentiary hearing may very well likely lead to a reversal on appeal.

Further information regarding valuation issues of marital assets can be obtained by calling experienced Boca Raton divorce attorney Alan R. Burton at 954-295-9222

During a divorce, Florida law requires the fair and equitable division of all jointly-owned property and this law applies to debts, as well. However, dividing up debts can be complex, especially if some debts are owned individually and others jointly. The name on the debt does not always mean that person will be solely responsible for the payments, however, and it is important to discuss debt division with an experienced divorce attorney who understands the relevant law. The following is some brief information regarding the division of certain debts in divorce:

Student Loans

Student loans are often individual debts unless the spouses cosigned on the loans or the loans were acquired during the marriage. In such cases, the loans would be considered marital debt and you may be held responsible for sharing the payment unless you and your spouse can agree otherwise. However, even if you agree that your spouse will be responsible for the loans, your name will likely remain on the loans and any failure to repay could affect your credit.

Credit Card Debt  

Credit cards are generally in the name of one person only and the other spouse is generally made an authorized user. However, if the debt was incurred during the marriage, it will likely be considered marital debt regardless of whose name is on the account. One exception to this may occur if your spouse purposely racked up a significant amount of debt in anticipation of the divorce. In such cases, a court may determine that debt will be their responsibility.

Mortgage

If you and your spouse bought a home together, your mortgage will likely be the largest debt you have. In many cases, especially if you do not have children, you may decide to sell the house to eliminate the debt all at once. However, if your spouse decides to stay in the home, you will likely have your part of the debt bought out. If you stay in the home and you cannot afford to buy your spouse out of the mortgage, you may be able to come up with another way to make up for it, such as giving them a greater portion of your assets or other property.

Contact a Divorce Attorney in Boca Raton for Help

When you are facing divorce, you likely already have enough financial concerns without having to worry about paying your spouse’s debts. Experienced divorce attorney Alan R. Burton knows how to fight for your right to a fair division of debt in line with Florida property division laws. In addition, Mr. Burton will assist in ensuring all child or spousal support determinations are fair so that you can emerge from your divorce in the best financial situation possible. We offer free consultations, so please contact our office at 954-229-1660 for help today.

Married couples acquire many things together over the course of their marriage, including homes, vacation homes, bank accounts, automobiles, and stock portfolios. They frequently start businesses together as well.

What happens to the family business after divorce? How does it get valued, how does it get divided, who gets to continue to run the business …. these are just a few of the questions that need to be addressed in this situation.

Generally speaking, the courts do not like to keep the parties together in a business after a divorce. That being said, the business would have to be valued by a professional, and one party would have to make arrangements to buy out the other party’s interest. This is the scenario which plays itself out most often.

There are those rare occasions when divorcing couples can, however, continue to operate a business together if they can agree on that arrangement. A story was reported today in the New York Post that dealt with the continuing operation of the Philadelphia Eagles by the divorcing owners, Jeffrey Lurie and his wife.

Although their particular situation is not generally the norm, it does occur. If you have questions about your particular business, professional practice, or any other jointly owned enterprise, it would be a good idea to obtain some professional advice from an attorney experienced in these matters.

Placing a value on jewelry is a more difficult question. There is ample case law that sets forth the principle that valuations must be based upon competent evidence. Noone v. Noone, 727 So.2d 972, (Fla. 5th DCA 1998); see also Knecht v. Knecht, 629 So.2d 883 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993).

In Lassett v. Lassett, 768 So.2d 472 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000), the husband tesified that his wife’s jewelry was valued at $10,000. There was no other evidence. The trial court stated that this was not competent evidence as to value. His unsupported opinion as to the value of the jewelry is not sufficient to warrant the distribution of that amount to the wife.

The only evidence the wife had as to the value of the husband’s jewelry in the Noone case was that apparently he had told her it was worth $10,000 at some point in time. This was not considered competent evidence by the court. Alternatively, the husband valued his own jewelry at $1,500 on his financial affidavit, which the court deemed to be competent evidence.