Opinion ID: 1814233
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Rate of Return on Investment

Text: ¶ 36. Next, Pierce complains that he was not able to establish the rate of return on investments because he was prohibited from discovering the total values of Cook's trust [2] before and after the divorce. During direct examination, Raleigh Cutrer, Cook's expert accountant, testified to the rate of return as follows: Q. . . . Now, as a result of having to pull money out of the trust, I don't believe you've factored in any of the loss that he would receive in loss of interest. Is that correct? A. That is correct. Q. And is there any way for you to give me an approximate, or have you been able to calculate a value, or an amount for the loss of income that he suffered as a result of having to pull out all of these funds from the trust account? A. Yes. What we looked at is that from the yearwe looked at his trust fund account and his personal account. He has a personal account at the brokerage house. And we looked at both of them or one that account grew to from 2000 to 2004. And roughlyand realizing that period was probably one of the worst periods from an investment standpoint you could really probably look at, excluding 2004, it still grew a total of about thirteen percent. Not thirteen percent a year, but a total of thirteen percent. So if you extrapolate that to $500,000, that would add an additional 65,000 roughly of value to the 500,000. Q. All right. So another 65,000 that he lost as a result of having to withdraw these funds. A. Right. That's just the 2004. If you look at 2005, where the yield was much better, probably somewhere in the neighborhood of almost close to ten percent growth; you know, that would increase that amount probably another $50,000 or so. Q. Another 50? A. Fifty. Q. So from 65,000 to 115,000? A. Yes. . . . On cross-examination, Pierce attempted to question Cutrer as to the amounts held in trust before and after the divorce. This testimony was sustained by the trial court. Specifically, Pierce asked: Q. What is the value of each of those trusts? [ATTORNEY FOR COOK]: Object to relevance, Your Honor. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. What's Mr. Cook's total net worth? [ATTORNEY FOR COOK]: Objection to relevance, Your Honor. THE COURT: Sustained. [ATTORNEY FOR PIERCE]: Your Honor, they've already opened the door with asking and so forth the percentageso far as asking the percentage of increase over the value of his assets. They have asked the question numerous times about how much the trust was worth before this money was withdrawn and now how much it is worth afterward. I ought to be able to inquire as to, one, what the value was at the date of marriage, what the date of thewell, date of establishment, date of marriage and date other further benchmarks along the way. [ATTORNEY FOR COOK]: Your Honor, may I be heard? THE COURT: Put the jury in the jury room. (THE JURY DEPARTED TO THE JURY ROOM) THE COURT: I hadn't heard anything about the value of that trust brought out on direct. [ATTORNEY FOR PIERCE]: Your Honor, they were talking aboutI don't know which card it was here but they were talking about howthe witness testified how much the trust had gained in value and had lost in valueI mean, lost perspective value by the fact that the money was taken out. THE COURT: No. What they asked was: based on what was taken out. [ATTORNEY FOR COOK]: By those THE COURT: How much was lost because of the amount that was taken out, not the interest on the entire trust. [ATTORNEY FOR PIERCE]: Well, Your Honor, he used as a barometer to gauge and determine this fact the percentage return of investment, if I'm not mistaken, of the trust. THE COURT: Yeah. [ATTORNEY FOR PIERCE]: And I believe one of the trusts he had not taken something out of was used as a barometer. I maythe witness may be able to better answer that; but they determined that there was a percentage growth by which they backed into this, is the way I understood it. THE COURT: Well, the money that wasthis money that was taken out of that trust would have earned that same amount, and that's why he used that barometer. [ATTORNEY FOR PIERCE]: Well, I know, Your Honor. That's why I want to go back and find out what was the base amount from which he calculated it. [ATTORNEY FOR COOK]: But there's THE COURT: Well, it [ATTORNEY FOR COOK]: It's irrelevant. THE COURT: It does not matter. He's testified that's how he did it. It doesn't matter how much money was in that trust; the way I see it. I don't see how you could look at it any other way. I mean, it doesn't matter if it's worth 100 million dollars or $10,000. He testified as to what the loss was on what was drawn out of it. And the best barometer he could use was what the trust earned. Because you couldn't go get somebody else's trust and say, Well, that one earned twenty-eight percent or five percent, so that's what this one would be. He used the best barometer he could use. So it doesn't matter how much is in there. He's showing his loss. Based on Cutrer's testimony, the trial court determined that it was not necessary for Pierce to cross-examination Cutrer on the actual money in the trust. Cutrer based the rate of return of the money withdrawn on the trust account according to the actual rate of return Cook received on the trust. Therefore, from the record before us, we find that the trial court did not err in sustaining as irrelevant testimony pertaining to the actual amount of the trust.