Bing v. Bing

4 Citing cases

  1. In re Marriage of Stevenson

    20 Cal.App.4th 250 (Cal. Ct. App. 1993)   Cited 17 times

    The evidence at the hearing shows the value of a small general contracting business, like that of a small law office or consulting firm, devolves largely from the personal skill, industry and guidance of the operating spouse, as opposed to its capital assets. (See Bing v. Bing (1959) 168 Cal.App.2d 348, 350 [ 335 P.2d 1020] [value of husband's general contracting business dependent on his personal skill and industry].) Thus, its value generally should be determined as of the date of separation consistent with the rule the earnings and accumulations of a spouse following separation are the separate property of that spouse.

  2. Osinoff v. Huter

    2d Civil No. B233539 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 10, 2013)

    However, general contractors operate personal service businesses. (Stevenson, supra, 20 Cal.App.4th at pp. 254-255; see also Bing v. Bing (1959) 168 Cal.App.2d 348, 350.) Husband further contends that his business has suffered losses due to the downturn in the economy rather than any intentional conduct by him to devalue the business.

  3. Anunti- Brown v. Brown

    A126266 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 26, 2011)

    Rosen considers goodwill in the context of a law practice, but the same principles apply where one spouse "intends to continue in his old business, continuing to attract the customers his reputation in that business has already attracted." (In re Marriage of Winn (1979) 98 Cal.App.3d 363, 367 (Winn) ["It is as much a proper exercise of the trial court's power . . . to compel [the spouse running a horse auction business] to pay for what he retains as it is in the law and medical practice cases"]; see Bing v. Bing (1959) 168 Cal.App.2d 348, 350 [value of general contracting business depends on personal skill and industry].) " 'The value of community goodwill is not necessarily the specified amount of money that a willing buyer would pay . . . . ' " (Fenton, supra, 134 Cal.App.3d at p. 461.)

  4. In re Marriage of Duncan

    90 Cal.App.4th 617 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001)   Cited 166 times
    Upholding a denial of fees where the parties each has "adequate resources to litigate the controversy"

    Thus, an alternative valuation date may apply to a business when its value "devolves largely from the personal skill, industry and guidance of the operating spouse," rather than the business's capital assets. ( Ibid.; see also In re Marriage of King (1983) 150 Cal.App.3d 304, 310 [husband's postseparation efforts, earnings and accumulations from technical consulting business were his separate property]; Bing v. Bing (1959) 168 Cal.App.2d 348, 350 [value of husband's general contracting business dependent on his personal skill and industry].) Conversely, a trial date valuation may be appropriate where the postseparation efforts of the operating spouse have "minimal impact" on any increase in the value of the business.