McGehee v. McGehee
1989 WL 51288, 543 So.2d 1126 (1989)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a community property partition, a trial court cannot substitute its own opinion for the uncontradicted valuation of a business provided by an expert witness, nor may it reduce the valuation based on a hypothetical non-compete agreement that is not a relevant factor in the partition.
Facts:
- William C. McGehee and Rebecca Walker McGehee were married in 1968.
- In 1983, the couple formed the Bill McGehee Insurance, Inc. corporation (Agency), with each spouse receiving 150 shares of stock.
- The Agency generated substantial revenue from insurance commissions, which an expert calculated to be $240,859 in 1986.
- William McGehee was the primary operator of the Agency.
- The McGehees legally separated in 1985 and subsequently divorced in 1986, leading to a dispute over the value of the Agency as part of their community property.
Procedural Posture:
- Following their legal separation, William C. McGehee filed an action in a Louisiana trial court to partition the community property he shared with Rebecca Walker McGehee.
- The trial court held a trial on the matter.
- The trial court issued a judgment that partitioned the property, allocating the insurance agency to William McGehee and fixing its value at $225,000.
- Rebecca Walker McGehee, as defendant-appellant, appealed this judgment to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit, challenging the valuation of the agency.
- William C. McGehee, the plaintiff-appellee, did not file his own appeal or answer his wife's appeal.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a trial court commit reversible error when it values a community property business for partition by rejecting expert testimony and substituting its own valuation, which is unsupported by the record and is based on the irrelevant consideration of a hypothetical non-compete agreement?
Opinions:
Majority - Lanier, Judge
Yes. A trial court errs when it substitutes its own unsupported opinion for an expert's valuation of a community asset. The trial court incorrectly considered a non-compete agreement as a significant valuation factor; expert testimony established that in a divorce partition where one spouse is awarded the business, a non-compete agreement is not an important consideration. Furthermore, the court committed error by creating its own valuation of $225,000, which had no evidentiary basis in the record. A court's role is to accept or reject an expert's opinion based on the evidence, not to supersede it with a personal assessment. Therefore, the appellate court accepted the expert's valuation of the Agency's 'book of business' at $361,298, which was calculated as of the time of trial.
Analysis:
This case establishes an important limitation on judicial discretion in valuing community property assets, particularly closely-held businesses. It reinforces the principle that trial courts are fact-finders bound by the evidence presented, not independent appraisers. The ruling clarifies that a court cannot arbitrarily discount a business's value based on hypothetical scenarios, like the impact of a non-compete agreement between divorcing spouses, especially when expert testimony deems it irrelevant. This decision strengthens the role of expert witnesses in complex valuation cases and provides a clearer standard for attorneys on how to prove the value of professional practices and similar service businesses in divorce proceedings.
Unlock the full brief for McGehee v. McGehee