The wild west of divorce. 1. Generally, in Florida, one side cannot have two experts testifying with the same opinions. I guess the second expert is either offering opinions mostly outside the first expert or replacing the first expert. Along this line, the lawyer should be asking the second expert narrow questions about what are her opinions and contrast them with those of the first expert. All of this is legal (rules of evidence) and not valuation. 2. “No reduction in value has been made for personal goodwill, if any.” A basis for disqualification outside of family law as the opinion is unhelpful to the trier of fact (rules of evidence). Not valuation. 3. “It does not appear that she has valued the business.” This is the second expert. Another basis for disqualification outside of family law as the opinion is unhelpful to the trier of fact. Not valuation. 4. “Can you fathom that, without valuing it, she will try to state that there is some goodwill and that it should be classified and bifurcated between enterprise and personal?” Nope. But it is family law and anything goes. All of this is really the lawyer’s problem, not yours. You could assist the lawyer by comparing the 2nd expert’s work to BV standards and BV practice literature. Dr. Michael A. Crain, CPA, CFA, ABV, CFE From: ERC listserve <listserv@ercllc.net> Reply-To: Jeffrey Denning <jdenning@markhamnorton.com> Date: Friday, September 18, 2026 at 12:59 PM To: ERC listserve <listserv@ercllc.net> Subject: [Listserv] Rebuttal of no goodwill BV and family law experts, I’m in a strange case and situation and would like some basic suggestion(s) after browsing details below: We provided a conclusion of value using an asset approach and NAV method for a small fabrication shop. Biz owns the real estate it occupies and has some fabricating and machining equipment. The subject biz is in a down cycle for the past 3 years. The marine and rec boating industry demand is down and their key customer is down worse. We found no goodwill, namely no residual income in our income approach and method. Standard is FMV and it’s for a Florida divorce. Other side has a rebuttal expert that has not issued a report. Their 1st Expert The primary opposing expert used an income approach with a sale-leaseback assumption and other wild normalizing adjustments that arrived at goodwill and then that expert did not classify or bifurcate the goodwill. Stated “No reduction in value has been made for personal goodwill, if any.” Apparently the rebuttal to our work from their 2nd expert is to try to supplement and/or rescue the first opposing expert. Their 2nd Expert She is providing deposition testimony on Monday. She is a reputable BV expert. It does not appear that she has valued the business. Can you fathom that, without valuing it, she will try to state that there is some goodwill and that it should be classified and bifurcated between enterprise and personal? Have you ever seen such a situation? How would you prepare the attorney to question the rebuttal expert re how she can classify and bifurcate goodwill if she hasn’t valued the business? And hasn’t interviewed the primary owner-operator? Any input will be appreciated, Jeff Jeff Denning, CPA, ABV Forensic Accounting and Valuation Services jeff.denning@creativeplanning.com<mailto:jeff.denning@creativeplanning.com> Direct: 239.433.5554 ext. 122 | Fax: 239.433.0127 creativeplanning.com<https://www.creativeplanning.com/> 8961 Conference Drive, Suite 1, Ft. Myers, FL 33919 [cid:image001.png@01DD477B.736F33C0] MarkhamNorton is proud to be part of Creative Planning. Click here to securely upload files.<https://exchange-taxpayer.safesendreturns.com/DropOff/004h004a5h000>
