200314087 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse

20031408'7 during the marriage. The 1,000 shares of stock in Darick's Paint and Body, Inc. are valued at $60,905. The parties' experts have chosen two different and distinct methods of valuation - -both of which are accepted methods of valuation. To determine value of closely held corporations for purposes of dividing marital property, the court may consider the nature of the business, the corporation's fixed and liquid assets at actual or book value, the corporation's net worth, marketability of shares, past earnings or losses, and future earning capacity. Else vs. Else, 5 Neb. App. 319 (1997); Bryan vs. Bryan, 222 Neb. 180 (1986). In the instant case, Respondent has urged that the value of the business should be $445,800 (see Exhibit 94). This value is based on testimony by Mr. Steve Groeteke and uses the capitalization of earnings method of valuation. This method utilizes weighted averages of net earnings, and then divides by a capitalization rate. Mr. Groeteke used figures from the years 1996 through 1999. Petitioner's expert, Mr. Alvin Alms, valued the stock at $16,685 (Exhibit 66) as of June 30, 2000 using primarily book value. In rejecting the Respondent's number of $445,800 the court notes that the business is located on land that is owned by the Petitioner personally and the corporation would either be obligated to pay rent in the amount demanded or move the business. The corporation is currently obligated to pay rent in the amount of $3,000 per month to Petitioner. However, the testimony at trial was that the corporation did not have enough cash to make these payments and thus was delinquent. Respondent's expert sets forth in Exhibit 94 and Exhibit 11 a historical income statement of the business from 1994 through 1999. The figures show extraordinarily high income years for 1995, 1996, and 1997. Since 1990, the remaining figures run from $20,000 to $39,000. Most recently, for the year 1999, net income is shown at $20,240 and for the year 2000, net income is shown at negative $43,580. The figures for 2000 were not considered in the value proposed by Respondent. The year 2000 may be of significance because the Petitioner suffered a serious heart attack at the beginning of the year which resulted in his decreased activity in the business. To date, Petitioner has still not resumed full time activities at the shop commensurate with his activities prior to the heart attack. Medical testimony by the Petitioner and his Doctor show that he may be able to resume normal activities at some point, but that daily cardiac rehabilitation is necessary and he must continue to take medicine at a cost of nearly $400 per month. Petitioner testified that because of the rehabilitation regimen and his need to rest he has not been able to devote full time to the business. The decreased earnings may also be attributable to Petitioner's lack of