781.708.4445

wmlevine@levinedisputeresolution.com

Divorce Mediation Blog

Ohio Continues to Stew about Double Dipping Settele v. Settele

Wednesday, February 17, 2016

Our friend and colleague, Michael Flores of Orleans, knows that we obsess about these things, so he recently sent along September 2015’s case, Settele v. Settele. It is Ohio’s latest foray into the fractious realm of double counting income, to value small businesses, and then for support. The Delessio, Champion, Sampson and Adlakha cases have made Massachusetts lawyers and courts acutely sensitive to the issue, and debate rages daily, here, about what is or is not an “inequitable”, and thus impermissible, double dip.

Ohio lawyers seem to be equally tuned in, as the spate of recent reported cases indicates. That state has gone from relative clarity in Heller I, II and III (2008 -11) [Excluding business income above “reasonable compensation” used in discounted cash flow valuation because: "[t]rial courts may treat a spouse's future business profits either as a marital asset subject to division, or as a stream of income for spousal support purposes, but not both."]; to repudiation in 2015’s Bohme [upholding the trial judge’s use of capitalized income as a simultaneous source of support because double counting is an economic fallacy]; to broad discretion in last year’s Gallo [the courts have been “softening” Heller since its inception and a judge will know an “unfair” double dip when he or she sees it; and is fully armed to mitigate it].

In Settele, Ohio adds denial.

In Settele the court addresses the following question: where a business is valued by net worth calculation only, but including accounts receivable (A/R) as an asset, is support that is drawn from the future collection of those specific A/R a double dip that is barred by Heller I? The husband-appellant complained that his available income stream should have been reduced for support calculation purposes to reflect that a portion that income was A/R at the valuation date, and thus divided already with his wife.

Rather than indulge the “we’ll fix it if it is unfair” approach of Gallo, the Settele court decided, instead, that because A/R have already been “earned”, just not collected, no double dip would occur at all. So, the court concluded, the question of unfairness need not be reached. The decision certainly lines up with the orthodoxy, both here and in Ohio, that an asset-based valuation will generally not yield a double dip problem. But, is it right? Where the asset-based valuation does include A/R, why is it not a double dip to use those specific collections as a source of support? Doesn’t the bare statement that the A/R dollars are already “earned” deny the reality of a cash basis taxpayer? Surely, an owner takes his or her chances on collecting A/R dollars for which he or she has been charged a divisible asset value. Does not the use of those assets (which may never, in fact, be collected) for support, double the owner’s jeopardy?

As Gallo asserts, the Ohio courts have broad discretion to find that double dips are outweighed by other equities. Certainly, A/R, which hopefully yield income in the relative near-term, present a problem of lesser degree than indefinite future cash flows that have been capitalized to form an opinion of value. But, that does not make them inapposite in principle.

It seems that the court could have acknowledged that A/R as a support source may well be a double dip, but that its impact may be minimal, is trumped by other equities, or may be remedied, by exercise of discretion. This would have, it seems, been truer to Gallo by, softening, but not simply disregarding the core of Heller.



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



Delivered by FeedBurner

other articles


recent posts


tags

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