### COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED March 10, 2022

Sheila T. Reiff Clerk of Court of Appeals NOTICE
This opinion is subject to further editing. If published, the official version will appear in the bound volume of the Official Reports. A party may file with the Supreme Court a petition to review an adverse decision by the Court of Appeals. See W IS . S TAT . § 808.10 and R ULE 809.62.

Appeal No. 2021AP1034 Cir. Ct. No. 2019FA1192 STATE OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT IV

I N RE THE MARRIAGE OF :

M EGAN W. D ETTLOFF - M EYER , J OINT - P ETITIONER - R ESPONDENT ,

V . N ATHAN C. M EYER , J OINT - P ETITIONER - A PPELLANT .

APPEAL from an order of the circuit court for Dane County:
RHONDA L. LANFORD , Judge. Affirmed

.

Before Kloppenburg, Fitzpatrick, and Nashold, JJ.

Per curiam opinions may not be cited in any court of this state as precedent or authority, except for the limited purposes specified in W IS . S TAT . R ULE 809.23(3).No. 2021AP1034

2 ¶ 1 PER CURIAM. Nathan Meyer (Meyer) challenges the circuit

court ’ s valuati on , for purposes of property division, of a business that Megan
Dettloff

- Meyer ( Dettloff

) purchased from her parents less than one year before the parties filed a joint petition for divorce. 1 Specifically, Meyer argues that : (1) the

court err ed in determining the value of the business based on the purchase price
rather than on his expert ’ s trial testimony as to the business ’ s fair market value at
the time of divorce; and (2) the court erroneously did so by revising the court ’ s original valuation on Dettloff ’ s motion for reconsideration. 2 We reject Meyer ’ s arguments and, therefore, affirm.

BACKGROUND

¶ 2 As stated, t his appeal concerns the valu ation , for the purposes of property division, of the business that Dettloff purchased from h er parents and the
circuit court ’ s revising of its finding as to the business ’ s value on Dettloff ’ s motion for reconsideration. The undisputed facts pertinent to these two topics are
as follows.

1 In its judgment of divorce, the circuit granted Megan Dettloff

- Meyer ’ s request “to resume the use of her former surname, Dettloff,” and in her appellate briefing she refers to herself as Ms. Dettloff. Accordingly, we will refer to the appellant as Meyer and to the respondent as Dettloff.

2 Meyer also argues that the circuit court erred in citing, in support of i ts valuation determination, an unpublished per curiam opinion of this court, contrary to W IS

. S TAT

. R ULE 809.23(3) (2019

- 20). We agree. However, the opinion cited reflects well

- established legal principles stated in published case law and, therefore, the error does not affect the outcome of this appeal.

All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2019

- 20 version unless otherwise noted.No. 2021AP1034

3 ¶ 3 Meyer and Dettloff were married in 2009 and filed a joint petition for divorce in July 2019. They submitted a marital settlement agreement regarding legal custody and physical placement of their two minor children and disputed child support, maintenance, and property division. The primary disp ute regarding property division concerned the value of Dettloff’s business. E ach party retained an expert witness to determine the value of Dettloff ’ s business and her
income that she would receive from the business

. Meyer ’ s income as a scientist that is separate from the business was undisputed. The circuit court held a two

day court trial in June 2020, at which Dettloff , Meyer, and each of their expert
witnesses testified.

¶ 4 The following undisputed facts regarding the busin ess were established at trial. Dettloff ’ s father is a veterinarian and owned , with Dettloff ’ s mother, Dr. Paul ’ s Company LLC , for many years. Dr. Paul ’ s Company
manufacture d and s old herbal products for treating livestock. Dettloff ’ s father ran
the busi ness out of his home. Dettloff purchased Dr. Paul ’ s Company from her parents on October 1, 2018, for the price named by her parents , $500,000, comprising $431,527 in good will and $68,473 in inventory

. 3 The purchase was memorialized by a business asset p urchase agreement and a promissory note for a $500,000 loan to Dettloff from her parents that provided for monthly payments at 3.9% interest of $3,504.72. 4 Prior to trial, the parties agreed that n o portion of the business was received as a gift.

3 Dettloff operates the business as Dr. Paul ’ s Lab LLC. We will refer to the business she purchased, Dr. Paul ’ s Company LLC, and the business she now owns, Dr. Paul ’ s Lab LLC, as “Dettloff ’ s business” or “the business.”

4 We will follow the circuit court ’ s lead and refer to this loan as “the business purchase loan.”No. 2021AP1034

4 ¶ 5 Soon a fter Dettloff purchased the business , she took out another personal loan from her parents for $ 5 7,920 for “working capital” for the business. 5

¶ 6 Meyer ’ s expert, Craig Billings, opined that the business ’ s value w as $5 4 8,000 and Dettloff ’ s income was $196,657. Dettloff ’ s expert, Gaylene Stingl, opined that the business ’ s value was negative $171,000 and Dettloff ’ s income was $63,091. As to the business ’ s value, t he experts disagreed primarily regarding the
necessi ty and reasonableness of certain expenses incurred by Dettloff since she purchased the business and of her anticipated future expenses, and the anticipated profitability of the business.

¶ 7 In November 2020, the circuit court issued a written “Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Judgment of Divorce.” The court stated the legal
standard as to the valuation of Dettloff ’ s business , explaining that its value must
be established a s the fair market value based on a sale between a willin g seller and

a hypothetical reasonable buyer.

¶ 8 The circuit court found not credible much of Dettloff ’ s and Stingl ’ s testimony regarding the necessity and timing of the expenses incurred by Dettloff since she purchased the business and the projected expenses. The court
discounted that testimony as not relevant to what a hypothetical buyer would pay for the business. The court also found not credible Stingl ’ s testimony regarding the anticipated profitability of the business.

¶ 9 The circuit court found that Billings ’ s report “was based on documented historical figures and reasonable expectations of future revenue and

5 We will follow the circuit court ’ s lead and refer to this loan as “the equipment loan.”No. 2021AP1034

5 expenses [and] more closely fits with [ Dettloff ’ s] recent purchase of the business and her stated expect ations.” Accordingly, the court accepted Billings ’ s valuation
of the business , incorporated that value in its property division , and ordered
Dettloff to pay Meyer an equalization payment of $84,581.

¶ 10 The circuit court also ordered Dettloff to pay Meyer child support of $1,077 monthly and to pay Meyer maintenance of $900 monthly for five years.

¶ 11 Dettloff subsequently file d a motion for reconsideration “based on a manifest error of law and facts.” Specifically, D ettloff sought a re determination of
the “proper” valu e of the business and the corresponding equalization payment, and a recalculation of child support and maintenance. As to the business valuation, Dettloff asserted that the circuit court erred in findin g that Billings valued the business at $548,000, when the evidence established that Billings valued the business at $1,092,461, and then subtracted the outstanding debt against
the business (modified by some undisputed adjustments) to reach the net value o f $548,000. Dettloff argued that there was neither any evidence in the record nor any factual finding by the court showing “how the value of the business increased from its $500,000 purchase price in October 2018 to a value of $1,092,461
20 months later [ at the time of trial] .”

¶ 12 The circuit court held a hearing on Dettloff ’ s motion , after which it issued a written order denying Dettloff ’ s motion as to child support and maintenance and granting her motion as to the business valua tion and equalization payment. Specifically, the court did not change its findings as to the weight of the
evidence and the credibility of the testimony regarding income and other topics relating to its child support and maintenance orders. As to the bus iness valuation, the court found that Billings ’ s testimony did “ not support a business value of overNo. 2021AP1034

6 $1,000,000 for purposes of property division ” and determined the value of the
business based on the purchase price that Dettloff paid and the debt that Det tloff incurred when she purchased the business. The court ordered that the property division be amended accordingly.

¶ 13 Meyer then filed a motion for reconsideration, asserting that Billings properly subtracted the $500,000 business pur chase loan from the $1,092,461 to arrive at $548,000 (after applying undisputed adjustments ) as the value of the
business at the time of trial

. Meyer argued that there was no evidence showing
that the gross value of $1,092,461 wa s too high.

¶ 14 The circuit court held a hearing on Meyer ’ s motion. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court denied the motion to reconsider its findings in
its earlier order (on Dettloff ’ s motion) regarding Billings ’ s testimony and the
valuation of the busine ss. The court issued a written order in which it made additional findings to clarify its earlier order granting Dettloff ’ s motion and amended the judgment based on those additional findings, consistent with its remarks at the hearing s on Dettloff ’ s and Meyer ’ s motion s

. ¶ 15 Specifically, t he circuit court clarified the part of its earlier order granting Dettloff ’ s motion for reconsideration, explain ing why : (1) it rejected both experts ’ opinions regarding the value of the business ; (2) it was appropriate to “look to” the business ’ s recent purchase price , represented by the total of the
business purchase and equipment loans assumed at or near the time of purchase, to determine its value ; and (3) the reduction at the time of trial in the p rincipal of the
business purchase and equipment loans assumed by Dettloff at the time of the purchase was “an appropriate measure for assigning a value” to the business for
p urpose s of property division

. The court found that subtracting the principalNo. 2021AP1034

7 balance of the two loans at the time of trial , $512,690, from the original total of
the loans at or near the time of purchase , $557,920, resulted in a net business value
at the time of trial of $45,230 , and ordered that Meyer pay an equalization payment of $139,924 to Dettloff

. ¶ 16 Meyer appeal s

.
DISCUSSION

¶ 17 We begin with Meyer ’ s challenge to the circuit court ’ s finding that the value of the business for purposes of property division was $45,230, and we then address Meye r ’ s challenge to the court making that finding on Dettloff ’ s motion for reconsideration.

I. VALUE OF BUSINESS

¶ 18 Meyer argues that the circuit court erroneously determined the value
of the business for purposes of property division

. We first present the applicable standard of review and legal principles. We next present additional background pertinent to the court ’ s determination of that value. We then explain why we conclude that Meyer fails to show that the court erred.

A. Applicabl e Standard of Review and Legal Principles

¶ 19 The determination of the value of an asset for purposes of property division is a finding of fact. McReath v. McReath , 2011 WI 66, ¶22, 335 Wis. 2d 643, 800 N.W.2d 399. The applicable standard of review and related legal principles are well established :

Assets of the marital estate are valued as of the date the divorce is granted. This court will not upset the [circuit] court ’ s valuations of assets unless the valuationsNo. 2021AP1034

8 are against the great w eight and clear preponderance of the evidence. Weighing the evidence and determining the credibility of witnesses are matters for the trial court and, where more than one inference can reasonably be drawn from the evidence, we are obliged, on review, to a ccept the one drawn by the trier of fact.

... . The valuation of assets is a difficult and imprecise obligation of a trial judge in a divorce action...

. [T] here may be several conflicting opinions of the value of a certain asset. As the fact finder, it is the trial judge who must draw reasonable inferences and come to reasonable, albeit disputable, conclusions as to the value of assets as of the date the divorce is granted.

Holbrook v. Holbrook , 103 Wis. 2d 327, 334

- 35, 309 N.W.2d 343 (Ct. App. 1981) ( footn otes omitted).

¶ 20 T he s tandard of review and legal principles that appl y specifically to
a circuit court ’ s determination of the value of a business such as Dettloff ’ s are similarly well established :

In divorce actions, trial courts are not required to accept any one method of valuation over another. However, in valuing marital assets, courts are obligated to ensure that a fair market value is placed on marital property. Fair market value is not a valuation method but a definition assuming a sale by one who desire s , but is not obligated, to sell, and a purchase by one willing, but not obligated, to buy. Thus, determining the fair market value of a closely

- held corporation turns on the credibility of the expert as well as the methods and an alyses employed by the witness to arrive at his or her conclusion.

Schorer v. Schorer , 177 Wis. 2d 387, 399, 501 N.W.2d 916 (Ct. App. 1993) (citations omitted)

.No. 2021AP1034

9 B. The Circuit Court ’ s Determination of the Business ’ s Value

¶ 21 The circuit court revised and clarified its determination of the value
of Dettloff ’ s business in its decisions on the parties ’ motions for reconsideration

. The court ’ s decisions reflect the following three components of the court ’ s determination.

¶ 22 First, the circuit court found not credible both expert witnesses ’ testimony regarding the value of the business. Specifically, the court found that it made no “logical sense” to ascribe a negative value , as Stingl opined, to what the documentation presen ted by both parties showed to be a profitable business at and
since the time of purchase. The court also found that it made no “logical sense” to ascribe a value of more than double the amount of the purchase price that Dettloff paid less than one year before the parties filed for divorce and less than two years before the trial , as Billings opined . As to the latter, the court found that nothing in Billings ’ s cash

- flow analysis supported a value that high, and that there was no testimony regard ing Dettloff ’ s work with the business “that would justify an increase in value in that short period of time.” The court also explained that a value that high would necessarily imply that Dettloff ’ s parents gifted a portion of
the business as part of the $ 500,000 purchase price , but the parties agreed that no gift was included as part of the purchase price.

¶ 23 Second, the circuit court found that the best measure of th e value of
the business at the time of purchase was the recent purchase price , comprising the
sum of the business purchase and equipment loans assumed at or near the time of purchase, which occurred l ess than one year before the parties petitioned for divorce and less than two years before trial. The court explained that the basis for
th at finding was the absence of any credible evidence offered by the parties ’No. 2021AP1034

10 experts showing either a different value of the business at the time of purchase or any “substantial increase in the value of the business” since the time of purchase

. ¶ 24 Third, the circuit court found that the value of the business at the
time of trial , for purposes of property division, was the sum of the two loans that
Dettloff had assumed at or near the time of purchase ; specifically , the business purchase loan of $500,000 for the purchase price plus the equipment loan for an additional $ 5 7,920 , minus the principal owing on th os e loans at the time of trial

. The court explained that, having found that neither expert ’ s valuation of the
busin ess made “logical sense,” it determined based on the evidence that the
business value at the time of trial for purposes of property division was “what was paid for it , ” meaning the sum of the business purchase loan and the equipment loan, minus “what was o wed on it , ” meaning the outstanding balance on the two
loans. Meyer agreed in the circuit court that that calculation yield ed a “net value of $45,230.”

C. Circuit Court ’ s Valuation of Business Not Erroneous

¶ 25 Meyer a sserts that the circuit court ’ s us e of the purchase price to
determine the business ’ s value at trial was factually and legally erroneous

. We address and reject each as serted error as follows.

1. Factual Error

¶ 26 Meyer asserts that the court ’ s determination of the business ’ s value was factually erroneous in two respects. First, Meyer notes that there was no evidence that the purchase price was the fair market value at the time of purchase. Consequently, Meyer argues that, a bsent such evidence, the court had no basis to reject Billings ’ s valuation of over $1 million eighteen months later as, accordingNo. 2021AP1034

11 to the court, represent ing a doubling of the business ’ s fair market value in that short time without any evidentiary support for such an increase. However, the court explained that it was precisely because neither expert presented evidence of
the business ’ s fair market value at the time of purchase , together with the absence of evidence showing any substantial increase in the value of the business since its purchase, that the court determined that it was appropriate to look to the purchase price to determine the business ’ s f ai r market value at the time of trial for purposes of property division

. In the absence of any evidence to support a finding of increased value, the court was entitled to find that the recent purchase price, comprising the sum of the purchase price and equipment loans, was the best
indicator of value.

¶ 27 Second, for the first time in his reply brief, Meyer asser ts that there was ample evidence to support an increase in the business ’ s value, comprising testimony as to Dettloff ’ s efforts to improve the business and its increase in

revenue. We generally do not consider arguments raised for the first time in the
rep ly brief. See Bilda v. County of Milwaukee , 2006 WI App 57, ¶20 n.7, 292
Wis. 2d 212, 713 N.W.2d 661 ( “It is a well

- established rule that we do not consider arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief.” ). Moreover, we reject this argument on its merits. Meyer cites no evidence to support Billings ’ s opinion that the business ’ s value increased by more than 100% in the short time between purchase and trial. Nor does Meyer address the circuit court ’ s discrediting of Dettloff ’ s and Stingl ’ s testimon y as to the reasonableness and necessity of Dettloff ’ s improvement expenses as relevant to a determination of the
business ’ s value. While the court did credit Billings ’ s testimony that the business continued to be profitable, the court also found that the re was no evidence showing a “ substantial increase in the value of the business.”No. 2021AP1034

12 ¶ 28 Ultimately, both of Meyer ’ s factual error argument s ignore our
standard of review stated above, by which the circuit court ’ s f actual findings are reviewed using the clearly erroneous standard , and by which we defer to the

court ’ s assessment of weight and credibility.

¶ 29 In sum, w e conclude that Meyer fails to show that the circuit court ’ s finding s regarding the business ’ s valuation for purposes of property division w ere clearly erroneous.

2. Legal Error

¶ 30 Meyer a sserts that the circuit court ’ s failure to accept Billings ’ s testimony as to the business ’ s fair market value at the time of trial, and to use the
busines s ’ s purchase price instead to determine its value at the time of trial , was legally erroneous. Meyer cites case law consistent with that quoted above, to the
effect that a court is to determine the fair market value of a business at the time of
divorce. Meyer argues that the court ’ s use of the business ’ s purchase price to determine its fair market value wa s not a proper application of the well

- established principle that “an arm [ ’ ] s

- length sale price is the best indicator to determine fair market value.” Darcel, Inc. v. City of Manitowoc B d. of Rev. , 137 Wis. 2d 623, 624, 405 N.W.2d 344 (1987). As we explain, this argument is essentially a repackaging of its factual argument addressed above, and we reject it on similar grounds.

¶ 31 Specifi cally, Meyer argues that the business ’ s purchase price d id not represent its fair market value because the evidence showed that the sale was not

at arm ’ s length. That evidence includes that the sale was between parent and child, and that Dettloff did not review an y financial documents or conduct any financial analysis in an attempt to determine the business ’ s fair market value at theNo. 2021AP1034

13 time of purchase

. 6 However, as Meyer acknowledges, the circuit court ’ s determination of the business ’ s fair market value “t urns on the credibility of the expert as well as the methods and analyses employed by the witness to arrive at his or her conclusion.” Schorer , 177 Wis. 2d at 399. And, the weight and credibility to be given to the opinions of expert witnesses is uniquel y within the province of the fact finder. Id. at 396. Here, as explained above, the court explained why it discredited both experts ’ opinions as to the business ’ s fair market value and why it found that the business ’ s purchase price (comprising the sum o f the business purchase and equipment loans assumed by Dettloff ) was an appropriate indicator of its fair market value at the time of trial . Meyer fails to show that this finding, together with the court ’ s implicit finding that the evidence cited by Meyer did not suffice to show to the contrary, was clearly erroneous.

¶ 32 Related to this legal error argument , but in a different section of his appellate brief, Meyer asserts that the circuit court found that “the purchase price

was not an arm [ ’ ] s length transaction.” However, whether the purchase was an

arm ’ s length transaction is not dispositive. Ultimately, the court rejected the parties ’ arguments on that topic , finding that it may “look to the recent sales price
to determine the value of the business” in the absence of : any expert testimony as to its value at the time of purchase ; credible expert testimony as to the business ’ s value at the time of trial ; and any testimony “that would justify an increase in value in that short period o f time.”

6 Meyer also asserts that the evidence includes that Dettloff ’ s parents did not similarly attempt to determine the business ’ s fair market value, but, as Dettloff notes, there was no evidence as to what Dettlo ff ’ s parents did in this respect. The circuit court did find that Dettloff ’ s father retained an attorney for the transaction.No. 2021AP1034

14 ¶ 33 In sum, we conclude that Meyer fails to show that the circuit court committed legal error in “look [ ing ] to” the purchase price to determine the
business ’ s value at trial for purposes of property division.

II. MOTION TO RECO NSIDER

¶ 34 Meyer argue s that the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion in granting Dettloff ’ s motion for reconsideration as to the value of the business for purposes of property division. We begin with the applicable standard of review, next present additional background pertinent to the court ’ s decision, and then explain why Meyer fails to show that the court erred.

A. Applicable Standard of Review

¶ 35 We review a circuit court ’ s decision on a motion for recon sideration using the erroneous exercise of discretion standard of review. Koepsell ’ s Olde Popcorn Wagons, Inc. v. Koepsell ’ s Festival Popcorn Wagons, Ltd. , 2004 WI App 129, ¶6, 275 Wis. 2d 397, 685 N.W.2d 853. Under that standard, we will
affirm a discre tionary decision as long as the court examined the relevant facts, applied a proper standard of law, and used a demonstrated rational process to
reach a reasonable conclusion. Franke v. Franke , 2004 WI 8, ¶54, 268 Wis. 2d 360, 674 N.W.2d 832. We generall y look for reasons to sustain a circuit court ’ s discretionary decisions. Miller v. Hanover Ins. Co. , 2010 WI 75, ¶30, 326
Wis. 2d 640, 785 N.W.2d 493.

¶ 36 In this case, Dettloff moved for reconsideration under W IS

. S TAT

. § 805.17(3) which provides that following a trial to the court, “[u]pon its own motion or the motion of a party made not later than 20 days after entry of judgment, the court may amend its findings or conclusions or make additionalNo. 2021AP1034

15 findings or conclusions an d may amend the judgment accordingly.” To prevail on a motion for reconsideration under this subsection, a movant must either present newly discovered evidence or demonstrate that the circuit court ’ s prior decision
contained a manifest error of law or fac t. Koepsell ’ s , 275 Wis. 2d 397, ¶44; see also Schinner v. Schinner , 143 Wis. 2d 81, 92

- 93, 420 N.W.2d 381 (Ct. App. 1988) (applying the “manifest error” standard to a motion for reconsideration under § 805.17(3) )

. ¶ 37 Mere disappointment o f the losing party is not sufficient to
demonstrate manifest error. Koepsell ’ s , 275 Wis. 2d 397, ¶44. Instead, a manifest error is “that self

- evident kind of error which results from ordinary human failings due to oversight, omission, or miscalculation . .. [and] which tends to immediately reveal itself as such to reasonable legal minds.” Schinner , 143 Wis. 2d at 92

- 93.

B. Additional Background

¶ 38 A s stated , the circuit court initially determined that the value of
Dettloff ’ s business for the purposes of property division was as opined by Billings,
which was $548,000

. ¶ 39 A s the circuit court explained in its oral rulings and written orders on the parties ’ motions for reconsideration , it granted Dettloff ’ s motion and revised
its determination of the business ’ s value because its original decision regarding the
valuation of the business w as based on a manifest error of fact . That manifest
error was the court ’ s erroneous factual finding comprising its miscal culation of the
business ’ s v alue based on discredited expert witness testimony that made no

“ logical sense” in light of the purchase price paid and debt incurred by Dettloff a short time before the petition for divorce was filed and the trial was held

.No. 2021AP1034

16 ¶ 40 In its written order granting Dettloff ’ s motion, the circuit court explained its error as follows:

Finding the value of the business to be $548,000 assumes a purchase price of over one million dollars, which was an erroneous finding by the Court. While the cas h flow analysis done by [Meyer ’ s] expert support s the maintenance and child support awards, it does not support a business value over $1,000,000 for purposes of property division, especially given the fact that both parties agree t here was no gift included in the price.
¶ 41 The circuit court expanded on this point at the hearing on Meyer ’ s motion. T he circuit court explained that, upon hearing the parties ’ arguments at the hearing on Dettloff ’ s motion, the court rev iewed the expert reports and testimony and identified the factual error that required correction: that the court ’ s “intention was never to value this business at a sum that doubled the value in a

year

— that represented a year ’ s worth of tax returns. ” The court repeatedly emphasized that to value the business “so that it suddenly doubled in value in a
year ... does not make sense ... based on the testimony.”

¶ 42 At the hearing on Meyer ’ s motion and in the written order that
followed , the circu it court also c larified its reconsideration of the business ’ s value.
Dettloff ’ s counsel pointed out that it appeared that the court had taken Billings ’ s value of $548,0 0 0, which represented the gross value of $1,048,000 minus the
business purchase loan of $500,000, and then subtracted that same debt again to reach a net business value of $48,000. The c ourt responded that it had not intended to do that. Rather, as stated above, it determined that, in the absence of
any expert testimony as to the business ’ s value at the time of purchase or any credible testimony that the business had significantly increased in value since its purchase, it was appropriate to use the purchase price to determine the business ’ s value at trial. The court looked to what Dettloff paid for the business, which theNo. 2021AP1034

17 court found was the sum of the $500,000 business purchase loan and the $ 5 7,920 equipment loan, and found that subtracting from that sum what Dettloff owed on those loans at the time of trial was an appropriate measure of the business ’ s value
at the time of trial for the purposes of property division

.

C. No Erroneous Exercise of Discretion

¶ 43 Meyer argues that the circuit court erron eously granted Dettloff ’ s motion for reconsideration for f ive reasons

. We address each reason in turn.

¶ 44 First, Meyer argues that the circuit court ’ s stated reason for granting
Dettloff ’ s motion, the failure to account for “the debt agai nst [the business],” is not supported by the record. Meyer explains that Billings, in calculating the
business ’ s value, “already subtracted the debt from the ‘ gross ’ value

... to arrive at $548,000 after applied discounts.” Thus, according to Meyer, the co urt “misunderstood” Billings ’ s testimony and erroneously determined that Billings ’ s value did not account for the business debt.

¶ 45 Meyer correctly represents that the circuit court, in its written order granting Dettloff ’ s motion, state d that “there is no manifest error of law or fact regarding all issues except the debt against [the business].” However, Meyer
overlooks the portion of that same order where the court explained what it meant by reference to the business debt. As stated above, the court explained that when the debt is added to Billings ’ s net value of $548,000, the resulting gross value of $1,092,461 represents a doubling of the business ’ s purchase price. The courtNo. 2021AP1034

18 clarified that it was that gross value that was the manif est error of fact, which had

no evidentiary basis in the record. 7

¶ 46 Second, Meyer argues that the circuit court ’ s determination that Billings ’ s gross value represented a doubling of the business ’ s value at the time of purchase had no su pport in the record and was not relevant to the determination of
the business ’ s fair market value at the time of trial. We have already addressed and rejected this argument as part of our analysis of Meyer ’ s challenge to the

court ’ s valuation of the busin ess. See ¶¶ 24

- 31 above.

¶ 47 Third, Meyer argues that the circuit court did not explain why its
initial valuation was a manifest error of law or fact. However, the oral rulings and
written orders described in detail in the background secti ons of this opinion refute this argument, and we need not repeat here the court ’ s explanations detailed in
those sections. Meyer also criticizes the court ’ s explanation of why it credited the parts of Billings ’ s analysis that related to child support and maintenance (having rejected Dettloff ’ s arguments on those topics as merely disagreeing with “who the Court should believe”) , but not those parts that related to property division. Meyer cites no law supporting his proposition that it was wrong for the co urt to do so.

¶ 48 Fourth, Meyer argues that the circuit court relied on arguments and evidence not presented at trial regarding two specific points

. One point concerns Dettloff ’ s argument on reconsideration that, given the purchase price of $500,000,

7 To the extent that Meyer means to argue that the circuit court itself erred by again subtracting the business debt to determ ine the proper value of the business, the court later clarified that it did not intend to do so and explained that it reached the final value of $45,230 based on the business ’ s purchase price comprising Dettloff ’ s business purchase and equipment loans and what Dettloff owed on those loans at the time of trial. See ¶ 41 above.No. 2021AP1034

19 to accept Billings ’ s gross value of $1,092,461 would require determining that a portion of the business ’ s value was a gift. Meyer contends that Dettloff did not make this argumen t at trial. However, Dettloff had no reason to make this
argume nt until the circuit court made its finding as to the business ’ s value based on Billings ’ s valuation, at which point Dettloff properly raised it to support her
motion based on a manifest error of fact. Meyer also contends that Dettloff ’ s argument was cont rary to the parties ’ pre

- trial agreement that no portion of the business was received by Dettloff as a gift. However, Dettloff ’ s argument, by explaining how the court ’ s finding was contrary to the parties ’ pre

- trial agreement,

was entirely consistent with that agreement

. ¶ 49 The other point concerns Dettloff ’ s argument that Billings ’ s gross value represented a doubling in the business ’ s value from the date of purchase. Meyer reprises his arguments, rejected above, that there was no evidenc e of the
business ’ s value at the date of purchase. Meyer also contends that Dettloff did not make this argument at trial. However, as with Dettloff ’ s gift argument, Dettloff had no reason to make this argument until the circuit court credited Billings ’ s valuation, at which point Dettloff properly raised it to support her motion based on
a manifest error of fact.

¶ 50 Meyer ’ s fifth argument is that the circuit court erroneously changed its valuation of the business after finding that Dettl off had not met her burden to show a manifest error of law or fact. Meyer misrepresents the court ’ s decision.
The court found that Dettloff had not met her burden as to the court ’ s child support and maintenance decisions, but that Dettloff had shown a ma nifest error ofNo. 2021AP1034

20 fact as to the court ’ s property division decision, for the reasons stated numerous
times above. 8

¶ 51 In sum, on our review of the record, we conclude that the circuit

court did not e rroneously exercise its discretion by re considering its earlier decision regarding the valuation of the business. T he court reasonably determined
on reconsideration that it had erroneously determined the business ’ s value for purposes of property division based on a calculation and testimony tha t had no evidentiary support in the record.

CONCLUSION

¶ 52 For all the reasons explained, we affirm.

By the Court.

— Order affirmed.

This opinion will not be published. See W IS

. S TAT

. R ULE 809.23(1)( b)5.

8 In addition, Meyer takes issue in his reply brief with Dettloff ’ s suggestions in her respondent ’ s brief that the circuit court found that Dettloff had met her burden of showing a manifest error of fact based on “inconsistencies, errors and omissions” regarding both experts ’ testimony, such that the court credited parts of Stingl ’ s testimony over Billings ’ s testimony. To the extent that Dettloff may be so arguing, we do not rely on such an argument. Rather, we rely only on the circuit court ’ s pertinent oral rulings and written decisions.