Valuation of Stock Holdings and Interest on Debt in Arizona

In McCune v. McCune, 586 P. 2d 651 (1978), the Court considered whether a Trial Court had followed its instructions. The case involved the valuation of a divorcing wife’s share of a business run by her husband.

Facts of the Case

Mrs. McCune and Mr. McCune lived in Arizona as a married couple until Mrs. McCune filed for dissolution. At that time, their community property included a 76% interest in the business.

The court entered a judgment awarding her half of the stock held by the couple. She appealed that ruling.

She argued that, as a minority shareholder, her “half” of the stock was worth considerably less than the Husband’s stock.

She claimed she would have trouble selling it. Since her husband ran the business, she could not enforce her dividend rights.

She asked to be awarded a sum equal to half of the value of the couple’s interest in the business. The Court of Appeals agreed.

The Court sent the case back to the Trial Court to determine the value of the stock holdings. It was to award a money judgment equal to one-half of that amount to Wife.

The trial court held a hearing and entered a new judgment, from which she appeals.

Valuation Issues

Mr. McCune asked the trial court to limit the issue on remand to how she should be paid $127,190.00. That was the book value of 50% of the McCune’s total stock holding. The trial court granted this.

The wife claims that the book value understated the value of the stock. The trial court said that it would evaluate all of the trial evidence to determine value. It also stated that it had sufficient evidence to make a proper determination.

The Court of Appeals ruled that there was no requirement that the Trial Court take further testimony.

Interest on Debt

The trial court entered an amended decree of dissolution. It stated that Mrs. McCune’s interest in the business is to be purchased by Mr. McCune for $127,190.00. It requires him to pay her $650 per month until the sum is paid in full.

On appeal, Wife argues that she is entitled to interest on the unpaid principal balance. Interest should run from the date of the original divorce decree, January 5, 1976. The Court of Appeals agreed. It noted that in Arizona, the interest for any legal indebtedness is fixed by law at 6% per annum.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeals ordered that the judgment is modified to include interest at 6% per annum on the unpaid principal balance. It otherwise affirmed the judgment below.

If you need information about the valuation of stock holdings and debt in an Arizona divorce, you should seriously consider contacting the attorneys at Hildebrand Law, PC. Our Arizona divorce attorneys have over 100 years of combined experience successfully representing clients in divorce cases in Arizona.

Our family law firm has earned numerous awards such as US News and World Reports Best Arizona Family Law Firm, US News and World Report Best Divorce Attorneys, “Best of the Valley” by Arizona Foothills readers, and “Best Arizona Divorce Law Firms” by North Scottsdale Magazine.

Call us today at (480)305-8300 or reach out to us through our appointment scheduling form to schedule your personalized consultation and turn your Arizona divorce case around today.

Other Articles About Community Property in Arizona

Scottsdale Arizona Divorce Attorney.

Chris Hildebrand wrote the information on this page about the valuation of stocks and debts in an Arizona divorce to ensure everyone has access to information about family law in Arizona. Chris is a divorce and family law attorney at Hildebrand Law, PC. He has over 24 years of Arizona family law experience and has received multiple awards, including US News and World Report “Top Arizona Divorce Attorneys”, Phoenix Magazine “Top Divorce Law Firms”, and Arizona Foothills Magazine “Best of the Valley” award. He believes the policies and procedures he uses to get his clients through a divorce should all be guided by the principles of honesty, integrity, and, quite frankly, actually caring about what his clients are going through in a divorce or family law case. In short, his practice is defined by the success of his clients. He also manages all of the other attorneys at his firm to make sure the outcomes in their clients’ cases are successful as well.