Appeals court hears challenge to business valuation and mortgage findings in Negaban divorce case

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…