The Massachusetts Appeals Court heard argument in Cambus Negaban v. Shabnam Negaban (24P1226), a divorce appeal that centers on the valuation of the husband’s sole ophthalmology practice and related disputes over support calculations and a contested family promissory note tied to the purchase of a Newton house.

During oral argument, counsel for the husband urged the panel to find that the trial judge, Judge McSweeney of the Middlesex Probate and Family Court, effectively “double‑dipped” by relying on the same business profits both to value the practice and to set the husband’s support obligation. Appellant counsel (name not specified), arguing for Dr. Cambus Negaban, said that the practice’s annual excess profit—about $170,000, according to the record—was capitalized in the valuation and then also counted again when calculating support. “You can’t use the profit to value the asset and then use that same profit to utilize it for setting support,” the attorney said during argument.

Why the case matters: business valuations and support calculations are common issues in family‑court proceedings, and appellants asked the panel to reverse or remand because they say the trial court’s findings do not explain how the judge moved from the wife’s expert’s figures to the final number adopted in the judgment.

What the record shows: the wife’s valuation expert initially testified to a value described in the briefs at about $2.2 million; at trial the expert’s presentation was reduced to roughly $1.3 million, and the trial judge issued a valuation that counsel and the briefs variously described in argument (counsel cited figures in the record ranging from roughly $990,000 to approximately $1,158,000 as of Dec. 31, 2020). Appellant counsel told the panel that there is no clear explanation in the judge’s written findings for how those adjustments were made, which complicates judicial review on appeal.

Methodology and the cap rate: appellee counsel Brian Heenahan, representing Shabnam Negaban, told the panel that Judge McSweeney largely adopted the wife’s expert methodology but made specific adjustments — notably changes to the capitalization (cap) rate and to normalization of certain years’ earnings. Heenahan said the judge reduced the cap rate and adjusted earnings for prior years (including adjustments for 2016‑2017 and other years), producing a value that amounted to about 85 percent of the wife’s expert’s number as presented at trial. He described the trial court’s approach as falling within the “any reasonable view of the evidence” standard of review.

The parties’ competing points: appellant counsel argued that the husband’s expert testified the practice had no value beyond goodwill and that treating the owner’s salary and pass‑through S‑corporation profit inconsistently produced the double‑counting effect. Counsel also said the judge did not explain a roughly several‑hundred‑thousand‑dollar reduction that appears in the findings. Appellee counsel countered that the judge deducted the owner’s salary from the business value and that the support award (which was not appealed) of $75,000 for a family of five is inconsistent with the claim that the trial court relied on all profit dollars for support.

Mortgage and house funds: the argument also focused on the source of funds used to buy a Newton house. Appellant counsel said $830,000 of the purchase funds came from the husband’s mother via wire transfers from a Deutsche Bank account, and that the note and mortgage documentation raised factual questions. The trial judge found the promissory note and purported third‑party mortgage not credible and concluded the mortgage was illegitimate; counsel for the wife described subsequent trial‑court orders instructing the husband to dissolve or pay the contested obligation (an order by a later judge, Judge Cafazzo, requiring payoff or dissolution within 15 days was discussed). Appellant counsel argued there was no evidence contradicting the origin of the transfer at trial and disputed the judge’s credibility determination.

Practical effects and remaining proceedings: the house is on the market and the trial court ordered steps to resolve the recorded mortgage before or at sale; counsel warned that an unresolved recorded mortgage could prevent the wife from receiving sale proceeds needed for housing. Appellee counsel noted there are related post‑judgment proceedings, including a contempt matter and an additional judgment dated June 13, 2025, in the record appendix that also affects the house dispute; those matters remain in various stages of the trial‑court and appellate process.

Panel action: after the arguments, the panel did not issue a ruling from the bench. The court took the matter under advisement. “The matter is under advisement,” a panel member said at the close of argument.

Context: the case arose from a nine‑day trial in the Middlesex Probate and Family Court. Central issues on appeal are (1) whether the trial court’s valuation and its explanation in the findings are adequate for appellate review; (2) whether the trial court improperly relied on the same profit stream for both business valuation and support (the “double‑dip” claim); and (3) whether the trial court erred in discrediting the promissory note and related mortgage documentation tied to funds from the husband’s family. The panel’s decision will determine whether the judgment is affirmed, reversed or remanded for further findings.

Quote attribution: quotations in this report are drawn from the court’s oral argument record. The transcript shows counsel for the husband saying, “You can’t use the profit to value the asset and then use that same profit to utilize it for setting support.” Appellee counsel Brian Heenahan said the court’s valuation was within reasonable review and explained adjustments to cap rates and normalized earnings. At argument’s end a panel member stated, “The matter is under advisement.”

Next steps: the appeals court will issue a written decision after considering the record, the parties’ briefs and the oral argument held in this session.