Cited by

To persuade us otherwise, to assert that a buy-sell agreement is “not dispositive.” However, the question in Rogers was related to the court’s valuation of an ongoing closely-held marital 9 Nonprecedential opinions are not binding authority but can be cited for their persuasive value.

(stating that failing to discount the value of a business by the value of the party’s continued services assumes the party “will continue to contribute his talents and services [and] is, essentially, to capitalize [the party]”).

Husband also contends that Expert Kiwus’s report conflicted with Minnesota law because it did not consider Husband’s importance in the company nor did it consider goodwill, (concluding there was a “defect” in an expert’s opinion because he failed to consider the president of a corporation’s value to that corporation).

See, e.g. , Rogers v. Rogers , (stating that a company’s buy/ sell agreement should be considered when valuing a company in a dissolution proceeding, but that the agreement is not dispositive of value).

In support of his position that this court must remand for more specific findings on his prospective claims, h usband cites Rogers v. Rogers , d 307 (Minn. App. 1984) , review denied (Minn. Jan.

(valuing the shares of a company at which husband remained the president); (valuing contingent fees on an attorney’s work in "progress on the valuation date), review denied (Minn. July 19, 2005).

at 300-01 ( (holding that the marital portion of the proceeds of the sale of a business is limited to the value that is not dependent upon the spouse’s continued services)); (affirming the valuation of wife’s business without the assumption that wife would sign

(treating part of spouses’ interest in corporation closely-held by unrelated persons as marital interest).

ANALYSIS Standard of Review Appellant asserts that the trial court’s valuation of his interest in Mechanical Data under the capitalization of income method is erroneous as a

On remand, we note that capitalization of respondent’s Roberson v. Roberson, 296 Minn. 476

An appellate court should give “substantial deference to the findings of the trial court and recognize that in a matter such as this *527 exactitude is not possible.”

William asserts the trial court failed to exclude the value of William’s and Roberson v. Roberson, 296 Minn. 476, 477

in which the court stated that when valuing a closely held corporation the court should not include the value of personal services rendered by the owner.

For example, the “key man” owned an engineering services company, a service business largely dependent upon a few key people.

In a was similar to the present fact situation.

See, (remand required for explanation of valuation of husband’s interest in closely-held corporation).

The Art-O-Graph Stock The leading case on the valuation of stock in a closely-held corporation for purposes of a

Michael claims that the trial court erred as a matter of law in valuing Novick Co. as it did.

The corporate minutes show that stock was given “in gratitude for [appellant’s] untiring services.” In a complicated property division substantial deference must be given to the trial court’s findings because “ ‘exactitude is not possible.’ ” ().

Appellant also contends that the trial court’s valuation represented a capitalization of his personal future earning capacity, since he is the “key man” in the business.

Thus, and Roberson v. Roberson, 296 Minn. 476 , where the court gave no explanation for its findings and the appellate court could not determine upon what basis it valued a party’s interest, the appellate court remanded for reconsideration and more specific findings.