Peddycord v. Peddycord
| Decision Date | 17 June 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 3-1084A294,3-1084A294 |
| Citation | 479 N.E.2d 615 |
| Parties | John H. PEDDYCORD, Appellant (Respondent Below) v. Carole M. PEDDYCORD, Appellee (Petitioner Below) |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Robert J. Palmer, May, Oberfell, Helling & Lorber, South Bend, for appellant.
Judith N. Stimson, Buck, Berry, Landau, Breunig & Quinn, A Professional Ass'n, Indianapolis, for appellee.
The trial court rendered its findings, conclusion, and judgment dissolving the marriage and distributing the marital assets of appellant John Peddycord and appellee Carole Peddycord. John appeals from the judgment and raises the following issue for review: whether the trial court erred in valuing John's partnership interest in his law firm at the amount his widow or estate would receive upon his death.
In its findings of fact the trial court stated:
The court then found:
John does not dispute that his capital account is a marital asset to be divided by the court. However, he does contend that the court erred in finding the additional $53,630.89 death benefit to be a marital asset. He argues the court erred in valuing his partnership interest at the amount of the payment to his widow upon his death.
The valuation of an interest in a law partnership for the purposes of division of property in a divorce proceeding is a new issue to this jurisdiction. While decisions from other jurisdictions on this issue are not binding upon this Court, a review of those decisions is nevertheless insightful.
There is no dispute that a spouse's interest in a professional partnership is a marital asset subject to division in a dissolution. However, placing a precise or even an approximately accurate value on such a partnership interest, especially when the partner whose interest in question continues as a member of the firm, is not easy.
Universally, when a partnership agreement exists, courts have attempted to value the continuing partner's interest by reviewing that agreement. Weaver v. Weaver (1985), 72 N.C.App. 409, 324 S.E.2d 915; Holbrook v. Holbrook (1981), 103 Wis.2d 327, 309 N.W.2d 343; In re Marriage of Fonstein (1976), 53 Cal.App.3d 846, 126 Cal.Rptr. 264; Stern v. Stern (1975), 66 N.J. 340, 331 A.2d 257. In the cases, a split arises as to whether the interest should be valued as if the partner were withdrawing from the firm on the date of separation or had died on the date of separation. The partnership agreement in the present case provides different formulas based upon the reason for the partner's exit from the firm.
The cornerstone of the argument for using the death benefit approach is Stern, supra. In that case the Supreme Court of New Jersey acknowledged that the partnership agreement in question therein provided four distinct payment plans applicable to a partner who withdraws, becomes disabled, dies, or retires. The court stated that "probably the most accurate and certainly the most useful for present purposes is the formula for the calculation and payment of a partner's interest to his personal representative upon death." Id. at 346, 331 A.2d at 260. Unfortunately, the court failed to disclose why it...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Marriage of Huff, In re, 91SC266
...number of jurisdictions, the courts rely on an existing partnership agreement in valuing a partner's interest. Peddycord v. Peddycord, 479 N.E.2d 615 (Ind.Ct.App.1985); Weaver v. Weaver, 72 N.C.App. 409, 324 S.E.2d 915 (1985); Hertz v. Hertz, 99 N.M. 320, 657 P.2d 1169 (1983); Finn v. Finn,......
-
Porter v. Porter
...the trial court should have considered only the corporate practice's tangible assets in its evaluation. Fred cites Peddycord v. Peddycord (1985), Ind.App., 479 N.E.2d 615, to support his contention. However, in that case the court did not hold that a corporate or professional practice must ......
-
Lund v. Hrdi
...jurisdictions have so ruled, however. See, e.g. , Wisner v. Wisner , 631 P.2d 115, 120 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1981) ; Peddycord v. Peddycord , 479 N.E.2d 615, 617 (Ind. Ct. App. 1985) ; Bishop v. Eckhard , 607 S.W.2d 716, 717-18 (Mo. Ct. App. 1980) ; Fox v. Fox , 626 N.W.2d 660, ¶18 (N.D. 2001).¶1......
-
Borror v. Commissioner
...to treat the law partner's interest as if the attorney withdrew from the partnership on the date of the marital separation. Peddycord v. Peddycord, 479 N.E. 2d 615 617 (Ind. App. 1985). The court may value the partnership interest as if the partner withdrew and competed or did not compete, ......
-
§ 10.03 Goodwill
...e.g.: Illinois: In re Marriage of Wilson, 110 Ill. App.3d 809, 66 Ill. Dec. 508, 443 N.E.2d 31 (1982). Indiana: Peddycord v. Peddycord, 479 N.E.2d 615 (Ind. App. 1985). Minnesota: Johnson v. Johnson, 277 N.W.2d 208 (Minn. 1979). New Mexico: Hertz v. Hertz, 99 N.M. 320, 657 P.2d 1169 (1983).......
-
§ 3.03 Equitable Distribution Systems
...Indiana: Leisure v. Leisure, 589 N.E.2d 1163 (Ind. App. 1992); Porter v. Porter, 526 N.E.2d 219 (Ind. App. 1988); Peddycord v. Peddycord, 479 N.E.2d 615 (Ind. App. 1985). Iowa: In re Howell, 434 N.W.2d 629 (Iowa 1989); In re Lawson, 409 N.W.2d 181 (Iowa 1987); In re Marriage of Bevers, 326 ......