ALLISON J. BLOSSMAN, APPELLANT/CROSS APPELLEE,
v.
CHRISTOPHER J. BLOSSMAN, APPELLEE/CROSS APPELLANT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the trial court's method of splitting the difference between expert valuations for stock was not supported by competent, substantial evidence and must be reversed.
During a divorce proceeding, the trial court valued marital shares of Abita stock at $221.77 per share by splitting the difference between the parties…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Stock Valuation cases and more on FLexlaw
There are four issues raised in this appeal. Appellant Allison Blossman raises three issues on appeal, and appellee/cross appellant Christopher Blossman raises one issue on cross-appeal. Three of the four issues are being affirmed without further comment, as only one of these issues merits discussion.
The appellant argues there is no competent, substantial evidence to support the valuation of the Abita stock at issue in this case at $221.77 per share. Each party’s expert used a different method to calculate per share value of the Abita stock. Appellant’s expert utilized an “income cash flow” method and testified that at the time the petition was filed voting shares were worth $342.62 each and non-voting shares were worth $328.87 each. Appellee’s expert applied a “historical cash flow” method and calculated the value at the time the petition was filed at $106.52 per share.
In setting the value at $221.77 per share, it appears as though the trial court split the difference between the two valuations. Florida law prohibits this type of valuation. See Spillert v. Spillert, 564 So.2d *8791146 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). The Court offered no findings or explanation of how it arrived at the value of $221.77 per share. Therefore the valuation is not supported by competent, substantial evidence and must be reversed and remanded to allow the trial court to make a finding based on competent, substantial evidence. Despite appellee’s argument to the contrary, this valuation is not harmless error, because the trial court used the $221.77 figure to value 62 marital shares of Abita stock.
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.
VAN NORTWICK and ROBERTS, JJ., and DEMPSEY, ANGELA C., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Williams v. Williams, 133 So. 3d 605 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)…ut encompasses only those in New Mexico. Therefore, we must reverse and remand for the trial court to explain how it reached the value it placed on the collection and to set forth a value as to the pieces housed in Florida. See Blossman v. Blossman, 92 So. 3d 878, 879 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012); Wendroff v. Wendroff, 614 So. 2d 590 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993); Augoshe v. Lehman, 962 So. 2d 398, 402-03 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007). Competent substantial evidence supported the trial court’s finding that the family business and its as…
-
Lally Orange Buick Pontiac GMC, Inc. v. Simi Sandhu, 207 So. 3d 981 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016)…of how the trial court arrived at the $1.9 million valuation figure. Thus, the trial court’s valuation figure is not supported by competent, substantial evidence, and the court abused its discretion in adopting that figure. Cf. Blossman v. Blossman, 92 So. 3d 878, 878 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (holding there was no competent, substantial evidence to support trial court’s valuation of corporate stock, while each expert relied on different valuation methods and provid [*986] ed different valuation figures, it appear…
-
Tucker v. Tucker, 171 So. 3d 158 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)…ermining the stock’s value because the court, without providing a factual explanation, appears to have split the difference between the parties’ respective values of one cent and four cents to arrive at the 2.5 cents value. See Blossman v. Blossman, 92 So. 3d 878, 878-79 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (“In [*160] setting the [stock’s] value ..., it appears as though the trial court split the difference between the two valuations. Florida law prohibits this type of valuation. The Court offered no findings or explanation…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Spillert v. Spillert, 564 So. 2d 1146 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)