Court Opinion

ID: 9522370
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 02:24:05.469845+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:02:40.629714
License: Public Domain

PRESIDING JUSTICE JIGANTI, dissenting: I respectfully dissent from the majority’s conclusion that the trial court was correct in valuing the husband’s business at $66,000. The husband presented the only evidence concerning the value of the business. His expert’s testimony was that the business had no inventory, no assets, no accounts receivables and was basically a function of the husband’s ability to generate income. He concluded that as the value of the business was largely determined by the contributions and services made by the husband, the business had no resale value on the open market. Consequently, the business was worth only $1,000, the cost of incorporation and the value of the capital stock. Thus, the value of the business to the husband is, in effect, no different than the value of a salary to an employee. If the husband dies, retires, or becomes disabled the ability to generate income evaporates. Further, the trial court’s method of valuation used in the instant case was erroneous. As the value of the business is solely a function of the husband’s ability to generate income, the salary he draws was already taken into account and disposed of by way of the maintenance award ordered by the trial court. The result, in effect, double counts the husband’s ability to earn income. See In re Marriage of Wilder (1984), 122 Ill. App. 3d 338, 347-48, 461 N.E.2d 447. I would remand the matter to the circuit court to reconsider its judgment in light of the above.