781.708.4445

info@levinedisputeresolution.com

Divorce Mediation Blog

A “Growing Business” Negates Argument of Double Dipping in Washington State in Marriage of Cheng

Wednesday, March 29, 2017

In the Washington Court of Appeals’ recent case, Marriage of Cheng (denominated “unpublished” as in our Appeals Court Rule 1:28) the court set out an interesting marker for double counting analysis with closely held businesses that are valued by income methodologies: if it is a business with expectations for income growth, awarding alimony (they call it “maintenance”) from its future earnings is not a “double recovery” or, as we call it “double count” or “double dip”.

The husband in Cheng ran a consulting business with 2013 net income to the owner of over $900,000.00. Both experts valued the practice by capitalizing the “excess earnings” over the owner’s “replacement income” (the market value of the owner’s services to the company, putting aside compensation for the risk associated with his investment).The judge assigned a $3.6 million value to the enterprise, of which the wife received half, under Washington’s community property laws.

The judge also ordered the husband to pay a declining term of maintenance. The husband argued that this constituted double counting because the initial monthly sum of alimony exceeded the husband’s replacement income, and the first step-down was ¾ of his replacement income. Therefore, the husband argued, the alimony was, inevitably, to be paid from the capitalized portion of income.

The Court of Appeals disagreed, opining that to constitute a double dip, the maintenance award would have to “erode [the company’s] value.” Since the Husband predicted that his 2013 income would likely hold up for the year after divorce, the court reasoned that the he would have more than enough income to pay the maintenance, without any diminution of value; hence, no double dip.

This decision suggests that double dipping is a concept that considers alimony in relation to value itself, and not to the income that was used to determine value.

If Washington is a “fair market value” state, the Cheng court’s eyes are on that theoretical terminal event from which the business owner reaps the rewards of sale to a third party, when the hypothetical buyer will be disinterested that his or her seller was beleaguered by support obligations, focussing solely on the likelihood of continued cash flows for his or her own benefit.

Where we are a “fair value” state for divorce business valuation, in which the focus is on the value of future cash flows to the divorcing owner, and not directly premised on an imagined future arm’s-length sale, it is hard to envision the Cheng conclusion here – that it is not double dipping- on the same facts, since he core of the double dipping controversy here is whether alimony impedes on capitalized income, a distinction that can be consequential.

But, since our law does not preclude double dipping per se, but only that which is “inequitable”, the Cheng reasoning could lead to the same bottom line in Massachusetts. Our courts could conclude that the Cheng facts do, in fact, implicate double counting, but still be within the bounds of discretion, because the other spouse has needs and owner has the cash flow to afford to pay the alimony ordered.

It’s enough to make business owners , and their counsel, swoon.



Get e-mail notifications of new blog posts! Enter email address below.:



Delivered by FeedBurner

other articles


recent posts


tags

annulment family law arbitrators Family Law Arbitration LDRC alimony orders Defense of Marriage Act COLA lawyer-attended mediation Major League Baseball Arbitration Divorce Cohabitation Massachusetts Uniform Arbitration Act divorce arbitration arbitration DOMA lawyer mediators rehabilitative alimony divorce mediator Chouteau Levine Obamacare pre-ARA alimony special master Massachusetts alimony divorce mediators Levine Dispute Resolution divorce process divorce mediations Same Sex Marriage Act Reforming Alimony in the Commonwealth health insurance how baseball arbitration works disputes resolve disputes Massachusetts alimony and child support divorce litigation health coverage General term alimony Divorce Agreements divorce lawyers Baseball Arbitration family law Boston Self-adjusting alimony orders mediator Alimony Reform Act divorce and family law family law mediation private dispute resolution med/arb divorce mediation traditional negotiations Massachusetts divorce mediators family law arbitrator alimony law Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly Matrimonial Arbitration family support divorce agreement support orders Levine Dispute Resolutions arbitrator separation dispute resolution Baseball alimony reform legislation MLB labor agreement conciliation fraud divorce arbitrator divorce judgment Child Support Guidelines Twinkies Baseball Players alimony statute SJC arbitrators mediations divorced medical benefits mediation family mediation divorce and family law mediators Massachusetts lawyers IRC §2704 lawyers high-risk methodology med-arb Levine Dispute Resolution Center LLC child support The Seven Sins of Alimony self-adjusting alimony divorce arbitrators Massachusetts Alimony Reform Act alimony family and probate law disputes Levine Dispute Resolution Center litigation facilitated negotiations