Court Opinion

ID: 9586287
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:09:08.674181+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:27:31.289116
License: Public Domain

Chief Judge HEDRICK
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I concur in that part of the majority decision with respect to attorney’s fees; however, I dissent from that part of the opinion that affirms the remainder of the trial court’s judgment.
The majority states the question presented as whether the evidence supports the court’s finding that the value of the husband’s interest in Pateo on 8 March 1981 was $85,000. In my opinion, the question presented is not only whether the evidence supports the valuation made but also whether the court made sufficient findings to support its valuation.
This Court has stated that the task of appellate courts in reviewing the value placed on a professional practice or business, or an interest therein, by a trial judge for purposes of equitable distribution, is to determine whether the approach used by the trial judge reasonably approximated the net value of the business, or the interest therein. Poore v. Poore, 75 N.C. App. 414, 331 S.E. 2d 266 (1985); disc. rev. denied, --- N.C. ---, 335 S.E. 2d 316 (1985); Weaver v. Weaver, 72 N.C. App. 409, 324 S.E. 2d 915 (1985). Various approaches or methods can be used to value such *261businesses or interests; however, courts must value and consider the goodwill, if any, of the business in determining the value of the business or the interest therein. Id. To enable appellate courts to determine whether the trial judge properly or adequately valued the business or interest, the trial judge should make specific findings regarding the value of the business or the interest therein and the existence and value of the goodwill of the business, and should clearly indicate the evidence on which its valuations are based, preferably noting the valuation method or methods on which it relied. Poore v. Poore, supra. If it appears on "appeal that the trial judge reasonably approximated the net value of the business or the interest therein and the value of the goodwill of the business, if any, based on competent evidence and on a sound valuation method or methods, the valuation will not be disturbed. Id.
I see no reason why the above propositions should not apply with equal force to the valuation of an interest in a closely-held corporation, such as the husband’s interest here in Pateo. In my opinion, the findings made by the trial court here regarding the value of the husband’s interest in Pateo are not sufficiently specific to enable us to determine whether the trial court reasonably approximated the value of that interest based on competent evidence and on a sound valuation method or methods. A mere finding, such as the one made by the trial court here, that the court has considered several relevant factors or acceptable valuation methods in determining the value of the interest without some greater specificity or indication of the particular evidence or valuation method or methods on which the court relied is not sufficient. While I realize that the requirement of specific findings of fact supporting the valuation of an interest such as the one concerned herein places a heavy burden on trial judges who are faced with the difficult task of valuing such interests, in my opinion such findings are essential to permit effective appellate review.
For these reasons, I conclude that the trial court did not make sufficient findings to support its valuation and that the judgment, insofar as it divides the marital property, should be vacated and the cause remanded for additional findings regarding the valuation of the husband’s interest in Pateo.