Opinion ID: 2493631
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 17

Heading: Present value of future cash flow

Text: ¶ 36. The trial judge stated that his biggest problem with Stokes's valuation of the Certificate was that the methodology was just his opinion. But the trial judge further noted that among Bear Creek, Dedeaux I, and relevant treatises it is still not very clear ... what exactly goes in the evaluation of intangibles. [15] Specifically, the trial judge stated that [a] majority of the factors set forth ... to be considered are at best based on speculation such as future factors, [like] residential growth, future revenues and ... this [c]ourt is not aware of any approved method that must be used to calculate th[ose] factor[s], then reduce them to some finite number. Viewing the factors as collectively analogous to personal injury cases where pain and suffering is considered, the trial judge determined that Stokes's intangible-asset valuation was a matter of credibility for the jury. As to Elliott's testimony, the trial court order denying Gulfport's motion in limine to exclude Elliott's testimony provided that [t]he [c]ourt is of the opinion that the methodology used by [Elliott] as to future revenues ... [is] in accordance with accepted methods of evaluation of a utility business....