Percy v. Percy
| Decision Date | 22 February 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 2,CA-CIV,2 |
| Citation | 564 P.2d 919,115 Ariz. 230 |
| Parties | Geraldine PERCY, Appellant, v. Ray PERCY, Appellee. 2262. |
| Court | Arizona Court of Appeals |
The dispute in this case is whether the trial court erred in finding that certain corporate stock owned by the appellee had not appreciated in value at the time of the divorce.
The parties were married in June 1961. At the time, appellee owned 42% Of the outstanding capital stock of an irrigation company, Pinal Ditching Company, Inc. Appellee still owns the same stock.
According to his wife the company was primarily successful because appellee spent so much time working at it. Mr. Murray, the company's accountant, testified the success of the company was due to the efforts of appellee and its other two stockholders. He also testified that in his opinion the market value of the stock of the corporation did not increase between 1961 and the date of trial. His opinion was based on the fact that the value of the corporation depended mainly upon the efforts of the three stockholders and that the fixed assets of the corporation had depreciated greatly in value. He stated that this was his opinion in spite of the fact that the 'book value' of the corporation had increased by $67,000 during the period in question.
It is appellant's position that Mr. Murray's opinion is of no value since the book value is the only basis for determining the appreciation, if any, in the capital stock.
The record shows that the book value of appellee's share of the stock in the corporation was $15,483.30 in 1961 and $41,022.91 on September 30, 1974, an increase of $25,539.61. 1
The valuation of the shares of stock in a close corporation always presents difficulties. The rule in Arizona is that the 'book value' of stock in a close corporation is prima facie evidence of its value. American Surety Company of New York v. Nash, 95 Ariz. 271, 389 P.2d 266 (1964). 'Book value' is the declaration of the corporation as to the value of its property. In re Frank's Estate, 123 Or. 286, 261 P. 893 (1927). The problem of the valuation of stock in a closely held corporation is noted in Frank, supra:
'Perhaps there is no method of computation which the human mind could devise that would prove entirely satisfactory in ascertaining the value of stock closely held in a corporation of this kind. The law is satisfied by selecting that method which most nearly approximates market value. It is easy to conceive of corporations, the book value of whose stock is either far above or below the price it would bring if sold for cash upon the open market under normal conditions. Likewise there are certain holding companies which have no earnings, and yet their stock represents great value. It would be utterly absurd to assess stock in a corporation whose chief asset was its timber holdings on the basis of earnings. In such case there might be no earnings yet it could not reasonably be contended that the stock had no value. It is apparent, therefore, that, in determining the actual value of stock in a close corporation, book value, earnings, dividends, good will of the business, future prospective profits, and any other fact or circumstance which would influence a person ready, able, and willing to buy such stock should be taken into consideration. Resort should be made to all business tests and measures.
'A method of computation which would lead to inequitable or unjust results should be rejected. It is not advisable to lay down a hard and fast rule which should be followed in estimating the value of stock in a close corporation. Any method used must stand the test of reason. After all, courts should be more concerned with results than methods. In recent years the tendency is toward a consideration of all factors, such as (1) asset...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cockrill v. Cockrill
...(1954). On the other hand, relying on the language of A.R.S. § 25-213, the Court of Appeals, Division Two, held in Percy v. Percy, 115 Ariz. 230, 564 P.2d 919 (App.1977), that where separately owned property has increased in value there is a presumption that the increase is also separately ......
-
Rueschenberg v. Rueschenberg
...v. Everson, 24 Ariz.App. 239, 537 P.2d 624 (1975); Nelson v. Nelson, 114 Ariz. 369, 560 P.2d 1276 (App. 1977); Percy v. Percy, 115 Ariz. 230, 564 P.2d 919 (App. 1977); and Baum v. Baum, 120 Ariz. 140, 584 P.2d 604 7. In the event A did more than simply own the separate property, a court tas......
-
Smallwood v. Singer
...to suggest that book value of stock in a closely-held corporation is prima facie evidence of value is Percy v. Percy, 115 Ariz. 230, 564 P.2d 919, 920 (Ct.App.1977).4 The jury was asked in question # 1:Do you find from a preponderance of the evidence that at the time of the purchase of R.C.......
-
Baum v. Baum
...value of the stock of a close corporation, rather than fair market value, is Prima facie evidence of its value, Percy v. Percy, 115 Ariz. 230, 564 P.2d 919 (Ct.App.1977), and there has been no evidence presented to show why this standard should not be applied to the present case. The book v......