Court of Appeals Case Law: Change of Custody

After a divorce or custody case, parents often find themselves in the situation where a modification of custody is necessary. Generally a modification requires a showing that there has been a substantial change in circumstances since the last determination of custody, and that the change is in the child’s best interests.

In Buxton v. Storm, the Court of Appeals determined that the increased conflict between the parties, and the effect of that conflict on the child, qualified as a change in circumstances sufficient to modify custody. The record reflected that the case between the parties was highly litigious. Mother had repeatedly accused Father of serious crimes, but all accusations proved unfounded. Mother repeatedly excluded Father from participating in various medical and psychological interventions to treat and evaluation the child. Mother influenced the child such that the child’s behavior problems escalated. Finally, the experts who evaluated the case determined that the child displayed symptoms of anxiety, developmental delay, and aggressive behavior, which could be attributed to the conflict between the parties. In reviewing the statutory factors related to custody, the Court particularly focused on which parent would be willing and able to facilitate and encourage the child’s relationship with the other parent. Upon their determination that Mother severely interfered with Father’s relationship with the child, the Court reversed the trial court’s decision and awarded sole custody to Father.

Read the case, decided on 8/11/2010. http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/A136958.htm

Are you seeking to modify custody? One of our experienced divorce lawyers can help!

Court of Appeals Case Law: Valuation of a Business

In many marriages, one or both parties own a business. In the case of Slater and Slater, Husband owned a chiropractic business, which he purchased in 1996. Part of the purchase price included $37,000 for “goodwill” and the prior owner’s patient list, and another $75,000 for the prior owner’s execution of a non-compete covenant. The revenues generated by this business were substantially higher than the national average for chiropractic businesses. One issue at trial was whether the business’ “goodwill” included the value of a non-compete covenant, even though Husband asserted he did not intend to sell the business.

The appellate court reviewed the case, and first defined “goodwill” as the value of a business over and above the value of its assets, irrespective of the owner’s continued personal services, personality, or reputation. In other words, where a business has no value beyond its assets unless the owner personally promises his/her services to accompany the sale of the business, there is no “goodwill.” The court held that the trial court erred, and held that a future covenant is not recognized in the marital property division, because the valuation of the business as a marital asset could not be predicated on the enhanced valuation of the business based on an assumption that Husband would be bound by a noncompetition covenant.

If you own a business, talk to one of our Portland divorce lawyers about how the Court may value the business.

Read the case, decided on 12/29/10. http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/A137465.htm