Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Family Law topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Appeals court reviews asset valuations, inheritances and alimony in Sandquist v. Bosworth
Summary
The court heard arguments in a complex divorce appeal over valuation of business interests, treatment of post‑separation inheritances, a golf‑club membership, and whether the trial judge improperly 'double‑dipped' income used to value a closely held company and calculate alimony.
The panel reviewed a lengthy matrimonial appeal challenging distribution and valuation choices made by the trial judge.
Appellant counsel Sandy Derland argued the trial court misvalued and misallocated several assets, including a trust interest connected to a Milton property and other inherited assets, and that a post‑judgment math correction improperly shifted value to the wife. She also questioned why the judge excluded certain inheritances and whether the trial court’s findings aligned with its distribution order.
Respondent counsel Richard Novich defended the judge’s discretion to consider the timing, origin and integration of inherited assets into the marital estate and argued the valuation expert’s use of a capitalization‑of‑earnings method was reasonable. The respondent also contended the court properly exercised discretion in calculating a normalized executive compensation figure for alimony while denying a mechanical ‘‘double‑dip’’ across valuation and support calculations.
The panel probed whether the trial court provided adequate evidentiary findings (for example, placing a value on a one‑quarter trust interest in a Milton house), how to treat a golf‑club membership tied to property use, and whether any valuation error affected alimony. Counsel for both sides agreed the case is fact‑heavy and asked for deference to the trial judge’s equitable judgment or, alternatively, for remand to recalculate alimony.
