Opinion ID: 1663916
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Valuation of Southside Medical Group, P.C. and Office Condominium

Text: The parties founded Southside Medical Group, P.C., their medical practice, in 1981, and leased to the corporation an office condominium on Mackenzie Road. At the time of trial, husband held 90 shares of stock in Southside and wife held 10. Husband was awarded the condominium and all shares in Southside, but he complains the court erred in overvaluing the property thus awarded to him. Gerald Magruder, the wife's expert, testified regarding the value of the Southside medical practice, and the husband contends Magruder was incompetent to testify as to the value of the equipment. This contention is not well taken. Magruder testified he had visited Southside to examine the equipment in question and was familiar with the secondhand market for medical equipment, having valued used equipment in connection with the sale of medical practices. The qualifications of a witness to render an expert opinion lie within the trial court's discretion, Tharp v. Oberhellman, 527 S.W.2d 376, 379 (Mo. App.1975), and we find no abuse of discretion on the record here. Further, we do not find that the court's valuation of X-ray and computer equipment leased to the corporation by husband, based on Magruder's testimony is against the weight of the evidence or unsupported by substantial evidence. In valuing the Mackenzie Condominium, the trial court apparently accepted the $180,000 valuation, including leasehold improvements, given in wife's First Amended Statement of Property, leaving a net equity of $28,000 in light of the $152,000 mortgage on the property. Husband contests this valuation, arguing the market value of the property is $125,000 with balance of $154,000 due on the mortgage, leaving no market value at all. Husband and wife, as owners of the property, were both competent to testify as to its value, Schulze v. C & H Builders, 761 S.W.2d 219, 223 (Mo.App.1988), and we are obliged to defer to the factfinder's determination of credibility, Wynn v. Wynn, 738 S.W.2d at 918, which weighed in favor of the wife. Husband finally complains leasehold improvements were improperly counted in valuing both the condominium and the medical practice. The trial court awarded husband the condominium, together with all leasehold improvements thereto, and set its fair market value at $180,000. In valuing the assets held by the medical practice, the court included $28,000 in equipment and leasehold improvements, based on a balance sheet prepared by Magruder. A footnote to Magruder's equipment and leasehold figure, however, indicates that it does not include the condominium, and the following page of Magruder's report demonstrates that the full amount listed as equipment and leasehold was actually the value of equipment alone, thus the addition of the term leasehold appears to have been inadvertent both on Magruder's balance sheet and in the trial court's findings. This did not result, however, in any improper valuation of the assets, as husband would have us believe, thus this point is denied.