Court Opinion

ID: 9503709
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 19:48:46.430273+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:03:41.784958
License: Public Domain

Corrigan, J.
(concurring). I join the order denying leave to appeal. I write separately to express my respectful disagreement with Justice Markman’s interpretation of the trial court’s comments in determining the value of defendant’s company, Pyper Products. The trial court adopted the valuation of plaintiffs rebuttal expert, Christine Baker. Justice Markman opines that the court made this decision “without any explanation, stating, ‘I’m not going to go into the rationale.’ ”
I read the court’s comments somewhat differently. The court stated: “The Court finds that the appropriate valuation of [Pyper] is pursuant to Ms. Baker’s testimony, based on her — I’m not going to go into the rationale, but the Court does adopt her position with regard to the valuation of [Pyper].”
These comments reflect that the court adopted Baker’s valuation. Because the court referred to Baker’s testimony immediately before stating that the court would not “go into the rationale,” it appears that the court was referring to Baker’s rationale, which the court was adopting. I do not read the court’s comments as a refusal to state the court’s own rationale for its decision.1
Accordingly, I concur in the denial of leave to appeal.

 Contrary to Justice Markman’s assertion, my interpretation does not amount to “speculation” or “conjecture.” The court’s comments fairly reflect the meaning I have suggested.