Most family-law business valuations live or die on three things: how the marital and non-marital portions get separated, how personal goodwill gets carved out from enterprise goodwill, and whether the report can survive cross-examination by the opposing expert. I prepare the report knowing all three will be tested — because in my practice, they almost always are.
5.0 · 47 Google reviews
Most divorce business valuations never get tested above the trial court. When mine have, they have held up. Two engagements have gone the full distance — through trial, through appeal — and the appellate court affirmed the methodology and conclusion both times.
That matters because appellate review is the most contentious environment a business valuation can face. The opposing expert has had time to dissect the report, the briefs are on the record, and the court isn't deciding facts — it's deciding whether the methodology was sound. Surviving that twice is the difference between a report and a credentialed report.
Family-law business valuations operate under a different set of rules than sale, gift-tax, or buy-out engagements. A generic appraiser who treats them the same gets caught. Here are the four issues every defensible report has to address.
Where the business predates the marriage, I value it as of the date of marriage and as of the valuation date and attribute the change to its drivers (the operating spouse's efforts, market conditions, capital reinvested). Tracing requires period-specific financial statements and an opening-balance valuation. Under the legal framework I am asked to apply, how each portion is characterized is for counsel and the court.
Under the legal framework I am asked to apply, Florida distinguishes appreciation driven by a spouse's efforts from appreciation driven by passive market forces; how each portion is characterized is for counsel and the court. The valuation has to attribute growth to specific drivers — the operating spouse's efforts, operational improvements, market tailwinds, capital reinvestment, industry conditions — not just report a delta.
Under the legal framework I am asked to apply in Florida, personal goodwill — value tied to the individual spouse's reputation, skill, relationships, or specific licensure — is treated differently from enterprise goodwill. I am not a lawyer and I render no legal conclusion: my work is to allocate value between the two and to support that allocation with evidence. How the allocation is characterized under the governing law is for counsel and the court. The boundary is contested in almost every closely-held business valuation, and the carve-out methodology has to be supported by an exhibit the trier of fact can follow. I use the 16-factor MUM model.
Florida courts have flexibility on valuation date — date of filing, date of trial, or some date in between. The choice can swing the conclusion materially, especially in volatile periods. I value as of the date counsel or the court specifies, and show the effect of alternative dates if asked.
This is the single most important allocation in most divorce business valuations. Here's how I approach the line — and why the allocation is often the largest single judgment in the report.
Value tied to the operating spouse personally — reputation, professional license, individual referral relationships, distinctive expertise, individual customer loyalty. If the spouse left tomorrow, this value would walk out the door with them.
Value that lives in the business itself, separate from the operating spouse — established trade name, repeat customer base, location, systems, employees, vendor contracts, recurring revenue. If the spouse left tomorrow, the business would still produce most of its value.
Litigation is expensive, and most divorces don't need two competing experts duking it out. When both spouses (or both counsel) agree, I can be retained as the single neutral appraiser serving both sides — one number, one report, one expert retained jointly by both sides.
This is not theoretical. In the past three years I have been retained as the joint appraiser in multiple Florida family-law engagements where both spouses signed the engagement letter — including a 2023 franchise restaurant valuation in Ocala where I served as the joint neutral appraiser, and a 2022 HVAC business engagement in Marion County, also bilateral.
My opinion is the same independent opinion whoever retains me. In a joint engagement there is one expert, one engagement letter signed by both sides, one fee, and one report delivered to both at the same time. For attorneys, it can dramatically lower cost and shorten the timeline. Ask if it fits your case.
Drawn from the public CV. Case captions are listed where they are already on the public record; otherwise the business type, county, and year are reported. The full litigation log is available on request.
| Engagement | Venue | Stage |
|---|---|---|
| Bail Bonds Business | Sixth Judicial Circuit, FL | Mediation |
| Franchise Restaurant | Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach Co., FL | Mediation |
| Childcare Center — Scott v. Scott | Fifth Judicial Circuit, Marion Co., FL | Court Testimony |
| Aftermarket Auto Parts | First Judicial Circuit, Okaloosa Co., FL | Mediation |
| Home Health Agency | Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach Co., FL | Mediation |
| Franchise Restaurant — joint neutral engagement | Ocala, FL | Mediation |
| Construction Company | Fifth Judicial Circuit, Lake Co., FL | Mediation |
| Medical Practice — Zimmermann v. Zimmermann | Fifth Judicial Circuit, Lake Co., FL | Court Testimony |
| Dentist Medical Practice | Pinellas Co. Circuit Court, FL | Mediation |
| HVAC Business — joint neutral engagement | Fifth Judicial Circuit, Marion Co., FL | Mediation |
| Law Practice — Wright v. Wright Affirmed on Appeal | Fifth Judicial Circuit, Marion Co., FL | Court Testimony |
| Chiropractic Clinic | Marion Co. Circuit Court, FL | Mediation |
| International Engagement | Quebec, Canada | Mediation |
| ABA Therapy Practice — Kahrs v. Kahrs | Manatee Co., FL | Court Testimony |
| Pest Control Company — Fiscina v. Fiscina, No. 4D16-836 Affirmed on Appeal · Fla. 4th DCA · May 10, 2017 | Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach Co., FL | Court Testimony |
| Restaurant Chain | Waco, TX | Engagement |
Florida engagements span the First through Twentieth Judicial Circuits. Out-of-state engagements include Delaware, Texas, Arizona, and Quebec, Canada.
"Every report has my name and my signature. I do the work, I take the deposition, I sit in the chair."
In divorce, the methodology matters — but so does who is behind it. I am the appraiser who will personally complete your engagement, sit for the deposition, and take the stand if your case goes to trial. No junior staffer, no rotating team.
The CBA designation I hold is one of the very few U.S. business-appraisal credentials that require peer review of completed reports as a condition of certification — fewer than 400 appraisers nationwide hold it. In two divorce matters in which I was the valuation expert, the trial court's judgment was affirmed on appeal by the Florida appellate courts.
Schedule a free, confidential 30-minute consultation. We will discuss the triggering facts, the valuation date, the standard of value, whether a Phase I diagnostic or a full Conclusion of Value fits, and whether a joint-neutral engagement is on the table. No cost, no obligation.