Rebecca R. Grelier v. Maximilian J. Grelier III
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
4 DEC 2009 C8«rtof'ch| Appeals Clsrl! Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . Readers a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e Reporter of Decisions, A l a b a m a A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2009-2010 2060810 Rebecca R. G r e l i e r V. Maximilian J . G r e l i e r I I I Maximilian J . G r e l i e r I I I V. Rebecca R. G r e l i e r Appeals from Madison C i r c u i t Court (DR-04-956) On A p p l i c a t i o n f o r R e h e a r i n g PER CURIAM. T h i s c o u r t ' s o p i n i o n o f December 19, 2008, i s w i t h d r a w n . 2060810 and the following i s substituted therefor. R e b e c c a R. Grelier ("the wife") appeals from a d i v o r c i n g h e r f r o m M a x i m i l i a n J . G r e l i e r I I I ("the in particular, and division she of challenges the t r i a l c e r t a i n business judgment husband"); c o u r t ' s v a l u a t i o n of i n t e r e s t s of the husband's and t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s f a i l u r e t o r e s e r v e j u r i s d i c t i o n t o award periodic alimony i n the a s s e r t i n g t h a t the future. trial The husband cross-appeals, c o u r t e r r e d i n r e q u i r i n g him to pay c e r t a i n f e e s and i n o r d e r i n g him t o p u r c h a s e an a u t o m o b i l e f o r the wife. The wife and t h e p a r t i e s ' two were 4 and 2004, the things, custody a the c h i l d r e n , who 8 years wife h u s b a n d were m a r r i e d old filed divorce at a on May 13, were b o r n d u r i n g t h e the time complaint the on ground of that marriage, trial. On sought, among other o f t h e p a r t i e s ' c h i l d r e n , and an e q u i t a b l e d i v i s i o n of The the later; he complaint complaint in 11 days which i n c o m p a t i b i l i t y of On June 10, he sought husband f i l e d subsequently a an 28, of debts. adultery, June award t h e m a r i t a l a s s e t s and of 1995; divorce on an a n s w e r t o filed the his ground own of temperament. 2005, t h e w i f e f i l e d a m o t i o n r e q u e s t i n g 2 that 2060810 the trial court appoint auditing, examining, records, and i n t e r e s t s and subsequent a s p e c i a l master f o r the purpose and physical inspecting assets of the the accounting husband's the trial court instructed books, business r e p o r t i n g i t s f i n d i n g s to the c o u r t . hearing, During the o b t a i n the husband's a t t o r n e y ' s a p p r o v a l of the proposed 2005, t h e t r i a l court. a wife's a t t o r n e y t o d r a f t an o r d e r a p p o i n t i n g a s p e c i a l m a s t e r and b e f o r e s u b m i t t i n g the order to the t r i a l of to order On A u g u s t 2, the wife's a p p o i n t e d G a r y S a l i b a t o s e r v e as a s p e c i a l attorney, c o u r t , u s i n g an o r d e r d r a f t e d by master "for the purpose of i d e n t i f i c a t i o n fair market [husband] value of possesses and a l l business any interest d e t e r m i n a t i o n of entities as well in the the analysis as which and d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f t h e f a i r m a r k e t v a l u e o f Queen Bee o f B e v e r l y Hills, t h e b u s i n e s s o p e r a t e d by t h e [wife]." That o r d e r bore t h e s i g n a t u r e s o f t h e w i f e ' s c o u n s e l and t h e h u s b a n d ' s c o u n s e l indicating rendered The by their approval the t r i a l trial of the order at the court conducted was an o r e t e n u s p r o c e e d i n g o v e r 6 and December 20-22, 2006. tenus trial the i t court. d a y s : November 13-15 hearing, time court 3 heard During the ore testimony from the 2060810 h u s b a n d , t h e w i f e , t h e s p e c i a l m a s t e r , and numerous w i t n e s s e s ; the t e s t i m o n y a l o n e c o m p r i s e s o v e r 1,800 page record including on appeal. pertinent Various financial pages of the documentary computations 2,400- exhibits, regarding the p a r t i e s ' b u s i n e s s i n t e r e s t s , were a l s o a d m i t t e d i n t o e v i d e n c e . Although earned the testimony undergraduate indicated revealed business t h a t t h e w i f e had that degrees, both the parties had evidence w o r k e d p r i m a r i l y as an also accountant b e f o r e t h e b i r t h o f t h e p a r t i e s ' c h i l d r e n and as a home-based entrepreneur following children. contrast, h u s b a n d had the the birth and he was serving and the commercial corporations: Chase ventures part LLC, at In a LLC; Properties, the LLC; developer vice variety in In held T r i n i t y Associates, LLP; Builders, i n turn, LLC; Inc.; and owned w h o l l y o r a number o f o t h e r b u s i n e s s e n t i t i e s , n a m e l y : 4 trial. real-estate Research Park A s s o c i a t e s , Those e n t i t i e s , of closely Village of a and president time of participated through F l i n t Crossing, Rosemary C o r n e r s , LLC; LLC. executive husband r e g u l a r l y Commercial Investors, office-property as Chase C o m m e r c i a l P r o p e r t i e s , addition, the been s e l f - e m p l o y e d , p r i m a r i l y as c o m m e r c i a l r e t a i l - p r o p e r t y and broker, of RMC in Park Place 2060810 Associates, LLC; Hughes Associates, LLC; and Retail The Associates, Falls at LLC; Grants M i l l , Bradford LLC. In December 2005, w h i l e t h e d i v o r c e a c t i o n was s t i l l p e n d i n g , t h e husband brother; and h i s three business partners (his father; h i s and Remy G r o s s , h i s c o l l e g e f r i e n d ) r e o r g a n i z e d a l l t h e p r e v i o u s l y l i s t e d b u s i n e s s e n t i t i e s u n d e r one e n t i t y , CG P a r t n e r s , LLC, w i t h e a c h p a r t n e r o w n i n g a 25% i n t e r e s t i n t h a t entity. The b u s i n e s s e s was husband Builders, consolidating testified that had b e e n forced owed f r o m t h e f i n a n c i a l Inc., residential-subdivision during and The Ledges, development. the pendency The the debt t h a t failures an expensive husband of the divorce of also action he t o b o r r o w $30,000 f r o m G r o s s t o employ h i s a t t o r n e y and t o pay c h i l d s u p p o r t . testified that necessary to handle the outstanding he and h i s f a t h e r s t i l l Village testified A d d i t i o n a l l y , the husband t h a t he had b o r r o w e d a t o t a l o f $40,000 f r o m Chase C o m m e r c i a l P r o p e r t i e s , LLC, t o h i r e Sam W e s s i n g e r , a f i n a n c i a l expert witness; I n t e r n a l Revenue he a l s o s t a t e d t h a t he owed t h e U n i t e d Service States $15,000. The h u s b a n d t e s t i f i e d t h a t he had e a r n e d $63,227 i n 2005; he also stated that h i s a n n u a l income 5 had peaked sometime 2060810 b e t w e e n 1999 and 2000, when he h a d e a r n e d more t h a n $100,000 i n commissions. The h u s b a n d t e s t i f i e d t h a t a l l o f h i s b u s i n e s s i n t e r e s t s had undergone f i n a n c i a l in 2001; t h o s e t r o u b l e s began w i t h subdivision before that houses i n 2003 he and h i s f a t h e r h a d s i g n e d that that failed d e b t was $973, 954.20. had lived marriage, defraying salary party advances, their and l o a n s . expenses d u r i n g wife financial before The that the throughout their of t r i a l , testified neither t h a t she t o pay t h e p a r t i e s ' a p e r i o d when t h e y h a d no i n c o m e . that complaint substantial stepfather. account during w h i c h had o c c u r r e d the divorce borrowed means account; the wife testified period, note amount owed on testified At the time l i q u i d a t e d her retirement The He s t a t e d expenses t h r o u g h t h e use o f c r e d i t c a r d s , had a r e t i r e m e n t living sell debt s e c u r e d by t h a t development The h u s b a n d beyond to a promissory as o f A u g u s t 1, 2005, t h e p r i n c i p a l parties had and e x p e n s i v e the outstanding beginning The L e d g e s , a r e s i d e n t i a l t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n l o a n s were due t o be p a i d . representing and whose l o t s trouble various sums trial was from court 6 the parties' worst during the three years filed, the the p a r t i e s wife's admitted into mother evidence had and a 2060810 promissory note wife's mother executed and by t h e p a r t i e s stepfather on S e p t e m b e r 20, 2006, i n t h e amount that the t o t a l amount, by t h e t i m e o f t r i a l testified joint that and p a y a b l e demand and was $118,833.15. had later owed on t h a t large balances c r e d i t - c a r d a c c o u n t s d u r i n g t h e same p e r i o d . of the p a r t i e s ' separation at the time paid s e v e r a l o f t h e p a r t i e s ' c r e d i t - c a r d d e b t s and was her account wife had was mother her f a t h e r Moreover, the wife had "rolled over" balances onto h e r own c r e d i t - c a r d accounts unable t o make r e q u i r e d two other on She s t a t e d that that note In a d d i t i o n , the wife incurred owed $30,000 f o r t h o s e p a y m e n t s . than o f $ 1 0 0 , 7 3 5 . 1 5 ; she s t a t e d including interest, the p a r t i e s no to the had still testified credit-card when t h e payments a f t e r t h e p a r t i e s s e p a r a t e d ; she s t a t e d t h a t h e r m o t h e r was owed $8,800 i n reimbursement f o r paying those m a r i t a l debts. The total wife amount testified that o f $50, 345.29. her attorney By t h e t i m e had b i l l e d of t r i a l , her a she h a d p a i d $31,770.74 t o h e r a t t o r n e y by b o r r o w i n g f r o m h e r m o t h e r , b u t she s t a t e d t h a t she s t i l l owed $18,574.55 t o h e r a t t o r n e y . The husband t e s t i f i e d that $30,000 by t h e t i m e o f t r i a l , he had p a i d h i s attorneys over and, he s t a t e d , a l t h o u g h he knew 7 2060810 t h a t he w o u l d owe more, he d i d n o t have a f i n a l b i l l from h i s attorneys. The p a r t i e s had p u r c h a s e d a l o t i n The L e d g e s i n 1999 f o r a p p r o x i m a t e l y $165,000; t h e y had b u i l t a h o u s e c o s t i n g a b o u t $750,000 on t h a t l o t . B e c a u s e t h e p a r t i e s d i d n o t have enough money t o c o m p l e t e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f t h e h o u s e , t h e y had b o r r o w e d $50,000 f r o m t h e w i f e ' s a u n t , B e t t y L a d a s , i n o r d e r t o f i n i s h building the house. $592,379.67 At the time of t r i a l , on t h e f i r s t the house; mortgage the p a r t i e s and $74,070 on t h e s e c o n d mortgage on recorded a g a i n s t t h e house t o t a l i n g additionally, there were $10,500. two including r e p a i r o f a l e a k i n g r o o f , b e f o r e t h e p r o p e r t y c o u l d be things, interests. sold. c o u r t e n t e r e d a judgment d i v o r c i n g t h e p a r t i e s on J a n u a r y 8, 2007.^ other liens Moreover, the w i f e t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e house n e e d e d m a j o r r e p a i r s , The t r i a l owed I n t h a t judgment, t h e t r i a l awarded The t r i a l t o the husband c o u r t ' s judgment a l l of c o u r t , among h i s business noted: " I n m a k i n g an e q u i t a b l e d i s t r i b u t i o n o f t h e m a r i t a l a s s e t s and l i a b i l i t i e s a c c u m u l a t e d by t h e s e p a r t i e s d u r i n g t h e i r m a r r i a g e , and i n d e t e r m i n i n g t h e f a i r ¢^Although t h e h u s b a n d a d m i t t e d t o h a v i n g c o n d u c t e d an adulterous r e l a t i o n s h i p during the l a t t e r part of the p a r t i e s ' m a r r i a g e , t h e t r i a l c o u r t d i v o r c e d t h e p a r t i e s on t h e g r o u n d of i n c o m p a t i b i l i t y o f temperament. 8 2060810 m a r k e t v a l u e o f t h e i n t e r e s t owned by t h e [husband] i n t h e above e n t i t i e s , t h i s C o u r t f i n d s t h a t i t i s r e a s o n a b l e t o a p p l y a combined f o r t y p e r c e n t (40%) m i n o r i t y d i s c o u n t and m a r k e t a b i l i t y d i s c o u n t t o t h e e v a l u a t i o n s made by t h e S p e c i a l M a s t e r i n t h i s c a s e . I n a d d i t i o n , t h i s C o u r t has t a k e n i n t o a c c o u n t t h e f a c t t h a t some o f t h e u n d e r l y i n g p r o j e c t s owned by t h e above a w a r d e d e n t i t i e s h a v e a n e g a t i v e fair m a r k e t v a l u e ; and h a [ s ] a l s o t a k e n i n t o a c c o u n t t h e substantial debt for which the [husband] is p e r s o n a l l y l i a b l e , on a j o i n t and s e v e r a b l e b a s i s , w h i c h e x c e e d s t h e t o t a l amount o f $ 1 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 . To do o t h e r w i s e w o u l d be t o i g n o r e t h e r e a l i t y o f t h e f i n a n c i a l c o n d i t i o n of these p a r t i e s . " In the divorce judgment, the also ordered to pay r e h a b i l i t a t i v e a l i m o n y t o t h e w i f e i n t h e amount o f $1, 500 per month f o r 36 months. to pay renew the her I n a d d i t i o n , t h e h u s b a n d was necessary educational license a c c o u n t a n t , so long h u s b a n d was to as practice judgment a l s o o r d e r e d t h a t and that proceeds from wife that proceeds d i d not t h e h u s b a n d t o pay of $1,000 p e r The that wife the trial was as a to sale; receive in an filed timely a erred wife certified the the first event the of of net the sale installments settlement. appeal; she i n i t s v a l u a t i o n of the 9 sold judgment i n s t r u c t e d a d d i t i o n a l property notice $5,000. be $200, 000 that to public exceed such d e f i c i e n c y i n monthly month as court the the m a r i t a l r e s i d e n c e amount t o $200,000, t h e any for those expenses d i d not The the expenses instructed alleges husband's 2060810 business interests, interests, issue of in i t s division and i n i t s f a i l u r e periodic to reserve alimony. claiming i n h i s docketing of The those business j u r i s d i c t i o n of the husband cross-appealed, statement that the t r i a l c o u r t had e r r e d i n o r d e r i n g h i m t o pay a p o r t i o n o f t h e w i f e ' s fees, t o pay a m a j o r i t y o f t h e s p e c i a l - m a s t e r ' s purchase failed to present brief.^ the an a u t o m o b i l e those f o r the wife; attorney f e e , and t o however, t h e husband i s s u e s o r arguments i n h i s a p p e l l a t e T h e r e f o r e , we a f f i r m t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t as t o husband's cross-appeal, and we address only divorce the wife's cases allegations of error. Our standard established. A evidence be will of trial review in court's judgment presumed t o be based correct is well on o r e t e n u s and w i l l n o t be r e v e r s e d on a p p e a l a b s e n t a s h o w i n g t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t a c t e d o u t s i d e i t s d i s c r e t i o n o r t h a t t h e j u d g m e n t i s u n s u p p o r t e d by the evidence Clements so as t o be p l a i n l y v. C l e m e n t s , and p a l p a b l y 990 So. 2d 383, 389 wrong. See ( A l a . C i v . App. ^ T h i s c o u r t has c o n s i s t e n t l y h e l d t h a t when a p a r t y does n o t make an argument o r c i t e any a u t h o r i t y t o s u p p o r t an a l l e g a t i o n o f e r r o r , t h a t a l l e g a t i o n o f e r r o r i s deemed w a i v e d on a p p e a l . See R u l e 28, A l a . R. App. P.; s e e a l s o C a i n v. H o w o r t h , 877 So. 2d 566, 581 ( A l a . 2 0 0 3 ) . 10 2060810 2 0 0 7 ) ; see Civ. App. a l s o Harmon v. 2005) . Harmon, 928 So. 864, 2d 46, 873 wife the 298 (Ala. e.g.. Ex p a r t e P e r k i n s , first a s s e r t s on husband's 962 So. appeal that the trial court m a r k e t a b i l i t y d i s c o u n t s when business Heretofore, no whether a d i v o r c e c o u r t should A l a b a m a c a s e has a d d r e s s e d interests. use m i n o r i t y and m a r k e t a b i l i t y d i s c o u n t s when a s s e s s i n g t h e of a d i v o r c i n g spouse's i n t e r e s t organization. in a closely held See S t e p h e n A. value business However, t h a t i s s u e has b e e n a d d r e s s e d other j u r i s d i c t i o n s . 2d 2007). i n a p p l y i n g m i n o r i t y and valuing 295, ( A l a . 1 9 9 4 ) , and L.R.M. v. P.M., ( A l a . C i v . App. The erred 47 2d However, q u e s t i o n s o f l a w a r e n o t s u b j e c t t o t h e o r e t e n u s s t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w . See, 646 So. by many Hess, A n n o t a t i o n , Use of M a r k e t a b i l i t y Discounts i n V a l u i n g C l o s e l y Held C o r p o r a t i o n or Its Stock, 16 either by market value" property A.L.R.6th legislation standard must be b u y e r w o u l d pay S.W.3d 763 or by by determined e.g., (2000). (2006). caselaw, which to a w i l l i n g t r a n s a c t i o n . See, 34 693 by the Many have value gauging seller the jurisdictions, adopted of a a l l marital price a willing i n a hypothetical sales C r i s m o n v. C r i s m o n , 72 A r k . App. Pursuant 11 to "fair that standard, 116, i t makes 2060810 sense to apply minority those discounts and marketability discounts because r e f l e c t the economic r e a l i t y t h a t , u n l i k e case w i t h p u b l i c l y t r a d e d c o m p a n i e s , no r e a d y p o o l o f b u y e r s e x i s t s t o p u r c h a s e an interest in a private organization that carry control organization. that B a r l o w , 111 Or. However, does App. 179, Alabama value" standard not See 826 law i t the generally P.2d has with 18 not trial court business ability to of (1992). adopted must willing In re Marriage a for assessing m a r i t a l property. a the determine "fair market Rather, under Alabama law, the value property w i t h t h e o n l y l i m i t a t i o n b e i n g t h a t t h e v a l u e must be e q u i t a b l e under the c i r c u m s t a n c e s of the p a r t i c u l a r case. generally 2004). Yohey v. Yohev, That s t a n d a r d 890 So. 2d 160 (Ala. ( 8 t h ed. "fair 2004) See Civ. App. i m p l i e s t h a t t h e v a l u a t i o n must be fair t o a l l p a r t i e s c o n c e r n e d . See g e n e r a l l y B l a c k ' s Law 578 of (defining "equitable Dictionary distribution" . . . a l l o c a t i o n " of m a r i t a l property) . as the In cases i n which a d i v o r c e c o u r t does n o t c o n t e m p l a t e t h e s a l e o f a b u s i n e s s i n which one instead, of the intends spouses that c o n c e r n , i t makes l i t t l e the holds a business minority shall interest remain a but, going s e n s e t o d e t e r m i n e f a i r v a l u e by 12 the 2060810 measuring stick of a hypothetical sales price. That methodology would a r t i f i c i a l l y reduce the v a l u e of the m a r i t a l asset which in almost inequitable, to every the case, party would r e c e i v i n g only be a unfair, i.e., p o r t i o n of the reduced value or the p r o p e r t y e q u i v a l e n t to t h a t reduced value b u t w o u l d be a d v a n t a g e o u s t o t h e p a r t y r e t a i n i n g t h e interest, i n c l u d i n g i t s actual value to him or business her as the holder. In (App. Brown Div. correctly discounts v. Brown, 348 N.J. Super. 2002), the court held declined to apply minority when v a l u i n g t h e family-owned f l o r a l that 466, a and husband's m i n o r i t y business. The New 792 A.2d divorce 463 court marketability interest Jersey court stated: "'A minority discount adjusts for lack of c o n t r o l o v e r t h e b u s i n e s s e n t i t y on t h e t h e o r y t h a t n o n - c o n t r o l l i n g shares of s t o c k are not worth t h e i r p r o p o r t i o n a t e share of the f i r m ' s v a l u e because they l a c k v o t i n g power t o c o n t r o l c o r p o r a t e a c t i o n s . . . . A m a r k e t a b i l i t y d i s c o u n t a d j u s t s f o r a l a c k of l i q u i d i t y i n o n e ' s i n t e r e s t i n an e n t i t y , on t h e t h e o r y t h a t t h e r e i s a l i m i t e d supply of p o t e n t i a l buyers f o r stock i n a c l o s e l y - h e l d c o r p o r a t i o n . ' Lawson [Mardon Wheaton, I n c . v. S m i t h i , 160 N.J. [383,] 398-99, 734 A.2d 738 [(1999)] Whether m a r k e t a b i l i t y or m i n o r i t y d i s c o u n t s are a p p r o p r i a t e to the v a l u a t i o n of a l e s s than c o n t r o l l i n g i n t e r e s t i n t h e e n t i t y a r e q u e s t i o n s o f law w h i c h we review de novo, g i v i n g no s p e c i a l d e f e r e n c e t o t h e t r i a l judge's determination. B a l s a m i d e s [v. P r o t a m e e n 13 in a 2060810 Chems.. I n c . 1 . 160 N . J . [352,] 372-73, 734 A.2d 721 [ ( 1 9 9 9 ) ] ; Lawson, 160 N . J . a t 398, 734 A.2d 738." 348 N.J. S u p e r , a t 483, m i n o r i t y and for the A.2d a t 473-74. Noting m a r k e t a b i l i t y d i s c o u n t s are i n t e n d e d limited entities, 792 the liquidity court of m i n o r i t y i n t e r e s t s reasoned a p p l y when l i q u i d i t y that the that the to account in discounts business should not c o n c e r n s a r e n o t a t i s s u e , s u c h as when t h e b u s i n e s s w i l l c o n t i n u e t o be an o n g o i n g c o n c e r n f o l l o w i n g the divorce. court held 348 N.J. that, Super, i n such at 488, 792 circumstances, A.2d at "[t]he 477. The distinction b e t w e e n f a i r v a l u e and f a i r m a r k e t v a l u e a p p e a r s t o us e q u a l l y applicable family's i n the spouse's i n t e r e s t c l o s e l y - h e l d c o r p o r a t i o n f o r purposes of distribution." length v a l u a t i o n o f one Id. The i n d i s c u s s i n g the s a l e s o f s t o c k by in his equitable court explained that d i s t i n c t i o n fair-value standard a dissenting minority a p p l i c a b l e to shareholder: "Statutory appraisal rights accorded to d i s s e n t i n g s h a r e h o l d e r s i n New J e r s e y (and i n most s t a t e s ) i n c l u d e the r i g h t to a d e t e r m i n a t i o n of the ' f a i r value' (not ' f a i r m a r k e t v a l u e ' ) o f t h e i r shares. N.J.S.A. 1 4 A : l l - 3 ; see B o b b i e J . M o l l i s , I I , The U n f a i r n e s s o f A p p l y i n g L a c k o f M a r k e t a b i l i t y Discounts to Determine F a i r Value i n D i s s e n t e r ' s R i g h t s C a s e s , 25 J . C o r p . L. 137, 139 (1999), e x p l a i n i n g t h e d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n ' f a i r v a l u e ' and ' f a i r market v a l u e ' : 14 at 2060810 " ' " F a i r v a l u e " i s n o t t h e same a s , or short-hand f o r , " f a i r market v a l u e . " " F a i r value" carries with i t the statutory purpose that shareholders be fairly c o m p e n s a t e d , w h i c h may o r may n o t e q u a t e with the market's judgment about the stock's value. This is particularly appropriate in the close corporation s e t t i n g where t h e r e i s no r e a d y m a r k e t f o r t h e s h a r e s and c o n s e q u e n t l y no f a i r m a r k e t value. "'A c l o s e l y - h e l d c o r p o r a t i o n i s one t h a t has few s h a r e h o l d e r s and l i t t l e m a r k e t f o r t h e s t o c k , o r one t h a t has an i n t e g r a t i o n of ownership and management. When a p p r a i s i n g shares of a c l o s e c o r p o r a t i o n , f a i r v a l u e c a n n o t be f a i r l y e q u a t e d w i t h t h e company's f a i r m a r k e t v a l u e . Close c o r p o r a t i o n s by t h e i r n a t u r e have less v a l u e t o o u t s i d e r s , b u t a t t h e same t i m e t h e i r v a l u e may be e v e n g r e a t e r t o o t h e r s h a r e h o l d e r s who want t o keep t h e b u s i n e s s i n the form of a c l o s e c o r p o r a t i o n . ' " 348 N.J. S u p e r , a t 487, L i k e New of Ala. "fair Jersey value" Code 1975, 792 law, i n the A.2d at 476. A l a b a m a law recognizes dissenting-shareholder § 10-2B-13.01 (4) . Our the concept context. s t a t u t e i s s i l e n t as t o t h e a p p l i c a b i l i t y o f a m a r k e t a b i l i t y d i s c o u n t , b u t i n Ex B a r o n S e r v i c e s , I n c . , 874 Supreme Court quoted So. with 2d 545 Brown. 874 So. 2d approval a t 549-50. 15 parte ( A l a . 2003), the Alabama the explanation d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n f a i r v a l u e and f a i r - m a r k e t v a l u e in See The court of the contained held that fair- 2060810 market value does n o t apply i n dissenting-shareholder cases b e c a u s e t h e d i s s e n t i n g s h a r e h o l d e r i s n o t a c t i n g as a w i l l i n g seller, 874 shareholder So. 2d a t 550. Rather, f a i r v a l u e , the t r i a l to accord the d i s s e n t i n g court should determine p r o p o r t i o n a t e v a l u e o f t h e company as a g o i n g c o n c e r n a p p l y i n g any d i s c o u n t s . I d . a d o p t e d t h e same r e a s o n i n g in dissenting-shareholder cases t h a t i s a p p l i e d i n New cases, i t t h a t i t would f o l l o w the involving organizations. Jay E. to that the et (2007) court erred in marketability discounts i n this to i n divorce held business a l . . Standards of (analogizing divorce dissenting-shareholder cases). trial Jersey reasonable same r e a s o n i n g Fishman V a l u e - T h e o r y and A p p l i c a t i o n 167 cases seems m i n o r i t y ownership of c l o s e l y See without B e c a u s e t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t has conclude the Thus, applying the we conclude minority and case. Alabama law i s f i r m l y e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t "[m]atters of alimony and p r o p e r t y d i v i s i o n are interrelated, and the entire j u d g m e n t must be c o n s i d e r e d i n d e t e r m i n i n g whether the t r i a l c o u r t a b u s e d i t s d i s c r e t i o n as t o e i t h e r o f t h o s e i s s u e s . W i l l i n g v. W i l l i n g . 655 So. 2d 1064 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1995) . " H e n d e r s o n v. 2000). Henderson, "[TJhere 800 So. 2d 595, 597 (Ala. Civ. i s no r i g i d s t a n d a r d o r m a t h e m a t i c a l 16 App. formula 2060810 on w h i c h a t r i a l and c o u r t must b a s e i t s d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f a l i m o n y t h e d i v i s i o n o f m a r i t a l a s s e t s . " Yohey v. Yohey, 890 So. 2d a t 164. In t h i s case, the t r i a l c o u r t awarded t h e husband 100% o f h i s i n t e r e s t i n t h e v a r i o u s b u s i n e s s e n t i t i e s i n w h i c h he was i n v o l v e d . I n so d o i n g , husband's interest $1,003,514 because to of be the t r i a l worth the court considered the $602,108.40 application of a instead combined of 40% m i n o r i t y / m a r k e t a b i l i t y d i s c o u n t ($1,003,514 m i n u s 40% d i s c o u n t = $602,108.40). court erred B e c a u s e we have determined that the i n i t s v a l u a t i o n o f the husband's c l o s e l y trial held b u s i n e s s i n t e r e s t s , we r e v e r s e t h e d i v o r c e j u d g m e n t and remand the case w i t h i n s t r u c t i o n s t o r e c o n s i d e r i t s p r o p e r t y and i t s award o f a l i m o n y i n l i g h t the husband's b u s i n e s s i n t e r e s t s . is hereby reversed, we The h u s b a n d ' s r e q u e s t appeal of the proper v a l u a t i o n of Because t h e e n t i r e judgment pretermit issues r a i s e d i n the wife's division discussion of the other appeal. f o r an award o f an a t t o r n e y f e e on i s denied. APPLICATION GRANTED; OPINION OF DECEMBER 19, 2008, WITHDRAWN; OPINION SUBSTITUTED; REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS AS TO THE APPEAL; AFFIRMED AS TO THE CROSSAPPEAL. Thompson, P.J., and Bryan, 17 Thomas, and Moore, J J . , 2060810 concur. Pittman, J., concurs i n part writing. 18 and dissents i n part, with 2060810 PITTMAN, J u d g e , c o n c u r r i n g i n p a r t a n d d i s s e n t i n g i n p a r t . In this today's court's opinion o p i n i o n on o r i g i n a l withdraws, this court deliverance, made an which initial d e t e r m i n a t i o n t h a t the d e c i s i o n whether t o apply d i s c o u n t s i n valuing t h e husband's b u s i n e s s d e t e r m i n e d by t h e t r i e r noted interests of fact. was a m a t t e r t o be W r i t i n g f o r the court, I that: "The t r i a l court heard testimony from t h r e e e x p e r t s , r e c e i v e d s u b s t a n t i a l documentary evidence, and a c c e p t e d p o s t t r i a l l e g a l memoranda f r o m b o t h t h e wife's attorney and the husband's attorney addressing w h e t h e r t h e two d i s c o u n t s s h o u l d be a p p l i e d t o t h e husband's b u s i n e s s i n t e r e s t s . The t r i a l c o u r t has wide d i s c r e t i o n t o a c c e p t o r t o r e j e c t e v i d e n c e and t e s t i m o n y p r e s e n t e d o r e t e n u s . See C l e m e n t s [v. C l e m e n t s i . 990 S. 2d [383,] 389 [ ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 7 ) ] , a n d Harmon[v. Harmon], 928 So. 2d [295,] 298 [ ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 5 ) ] . Based upon t h e d i s p u t e d e v i d e n c e as t o t h e v a l u e o f t h e husband's business interests, as w e l l as t h e c o n f l i c t i n g t e s t i m o n y o f t h e f i n a n c i a l e x p e r t s who t e s t i f i e d f o r t h e w i f e a n d t h e h u s b a n d , we c o n c l u d e that the t r i a l court acted w i t h i n i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n making t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n t h a t computing t h e f a i r market v a l u e o f t h e husband's b u s i n e s s interests n e c e s s i t a t e d a p p l y i n g b o t h m i n o r i t y - i n t e r e s t and marketability discounts." I with issue would p r e f e r t o leave the d i s c r e t i o n i n each discounts t o determine, divorce i n valuing the t r i a l action, various of this on t h e s p e c i f i c whether types 19 courts or not of business state facts to at apply interests; 2060810 therefore, divorce I I dissent from the r e v e r s a l judgment i n t h a t concur of the t r i a l court's respect. i n t h e main opinion cross-appeal i s affirmed. 20 to the extent that the
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
