The money received by the husband from a contingency fee case after the parties had separated was not deferred compensation, the Court of Appeals of North Carolina has ruled, in a matter of first impression in that state. Green v Green, 806 SE2d 45 (NC App 2017), involved a case where the contingency fee was earned during marriage. As to whether the fee was separate property, the court stated that, on remand the trial court had to consider whether there was an increase in the firm's value and, if so, whether that increase was "passive" or "active."
BOWLING ALLEY BUSINESS VALUED AT $66,000
The parties' bowling alley business was property valued at $66,000, according to a Missouri appellate court decision. In Hagan v Hagan, 530 SW3d 608 (Mo App 2017), the trial court noted that the parties had "cooked the books from day one" and had no appraisal or inventory of assets for the court to consider. The husband had valued the bowling alley at $0--no assets, no debt. The wife's $66,000 figure was based on a gross value ($300,000) less outstanding principal debt had the husband made the required payments. She valued the bowling alley's assets at $300,000 because the husband had discussed selling the business to potential buyers for $300,000; the $250,000 acquisition price had not been fair market value, but a "special deal" offered by father to son; and the business would have remained profitable had the husband not mismanaged it. The court found no credible evidence of a valid, collectible debt to this husband's father for the bowling alley.
QDRO IMPERMISSIBLY MODIFIED DECREE
A QDRO impermissibly modified the parties' divorce decree, the Iowa Court of Appeals has held. In Marriage of Tinker, 902 NW2d 819 (Iowa App 2017), the husband stated that the child support shall be computed annually and shall be commensurate with the Arkansas Child Support Chart. It also stated that,...