Opinion ID: 2621325
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The superior court erred in undervaluing the tangible assets of the practice at $138,733.

Text: In Wanberg v. Wanberg, [8] we explained that division of marital assets involves a three-step process: (1) the trial court determines what specific property is available for distribution; (2) the court then determines the value of this property; and (3) the court decides what allocation is most equitable. [9] In Merrill v. Merrill, [10] we held that the trial court must make sufficiently detailed and explicit findings `to give the appellate court a clear understanding of the basis of the trial court's decision, and to enable it to determine the ground[s] on which the trial court reached its decision.' [11] Natalie argues that, in total, the superior court overvalued her medical practice. But her complaint as to the valuation of the tangible assets by the superior court is that the court selected a value that was too low. Natalie argues that the superior court erred when it found that the tangible assets of the practice had a fair market value of $138,733, rather than the $156,497 figure that her expert testified to. Natalie asserts that, since Greisen used the list of assets found in the tax returns for 1992-1996 and looked to no other source, his list of assets was inaccurate and, therefore, so was his valuation. In contrast, Briskey relied on three separate sources to value the fixed assets: the list from the tax returns, a list from Natalie's bookkeeper, and a list prepared by Natalie herself. Briskey stated that she primarily relied on the list prepared by Natalie. The superior court acknowledged that Greisen's computation of fixed assets is questionable as it is based on incomplete information. Nonetheless, the court used Greisen's figure for the tangible asset value in which the fixed asset figure was one component. Because the superior court acknowledged that Greisen's figures were questionable and did not attempt to obtain a more accurate figure, it was error to use these figures. We therefore adopt Briskey's valuation, $156,497, of the net assets.