202301650 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse

202301650 saving decisions were made with knowledge and informed consent by both parties and both parties prospered during the marital relationship. With their mutual success they acquiesced in a lifestyle of acquiring assets and also in a lifestyle of spending. The Defendant values the assets of Heritage at $5,951,000. The Plaintiff disputes that figure but both parties acknowledge that Heritage is a going concern with a number of valuable assets owned by the corporation. Heritage is not a private business although the parties present that it is their business. Heritage is a corporation and there are other stockholders owning 45.4 percent of the business with varied financial interests. In fact, the evidence shows one of the stockholders has brought a lawsuit on a promissory note alleging a $1,000,000 defaulted loan to the business at the present time. In 2009 the parties separated and continued to be employed by Heritage with the Plaintiff being the President and Chief Executive Officer and the Defendant being the main disposal expert. Both received remuneration the Plaintiff receiving $18,200 gross per month and the Defendant a like amount. As the Defendant points out in the evidence throughout the years of Heritage, the marital years, the Plaintiff did not have withholding taxes taken out of her corporate draw and the Defendant had withholding taxes. However, both mutually agreed to the structural setup of the corporation and both benefited from the structure of the business, i.e. Defendant's ability to participate in the business loss tax benefit and the Plaintiff benefiting from the Defendant's payment of withholding from his salary. Certified Page 3 of 10