Unequal Distribution of Corporate Stock
Trial court did not abuse its discretion by valuing respondent’s share in the corporation in accordance with appraisal of said assets by following the capitalization of excess earnings method outlined in Revenue Rules 59-60 and 68-609.
Evidence as to value of the stock awarded to respondent as non-marital property could do nothing other than show that respondent’s financial worth was greater than that shown by the record and such a showing could not work to respondent’s benefit insofar as the division of marital property was concerned.
In light of the fact that respondent’s certified public accountant placed the corporation’s net worth at slightly over one-half of petitioner’s valuation, cause was remanded for reconsideration of value of the stock of husband’s closely held corporation, and modification of the previously ordered distribution of marital property was authorized if, upon remand, such modification was dictated by the evidence elicited on the revaluation of stock.
In the absence of evidence of the stock’s value, the reviewing court could not readily determine the reasonableness of the trial court’s action in awarding the stock and the car to husband, supposedly offset by the award of furniture to wife. There was no basis in the record on which to determine whether the trial court’s award was a distribution in “just proportions,” and accordingly, the trial court erred in failing to value the stocks prior to allocating the marital property.
