In re Marriage of Bainbridge, 2023

In this case, Troy Bainbridge appealed the decree dissolving his marriage to Amanda Bainbridge. The appellate court did not err in its award of spousal support and determined  that the value of the husband’s company was proper because it found the wife’s expert  persuasive. The judgment of the trial court was affirmed. 

Background.

The husband owned and “runs” Bainbridge, a construction company that does mostly governmental contract work. The husband owned 70% of Bainbridge and the wife owned 30% at the time of trial. Trial was in December 2021, and the decree was issued in April 2022. The trial court valued Bainbridge at $800,000 and awarded Amanda, $1,000 per  month in support for 10 years based on an income of $220,000 for Amanda and $300,000  for Troy. 

Valuation of Bainbridge Capital.

Troy challenged the valuation of Bainbridge at $800,000  and contested its effect on the distribution of marital property. The husband argued the trial  court should not have relied on the wife’s expert and did not consider all of the relevant  evidence. An equal division was not always an equitable division in marital dissolution. 

The value of the property was normally determined (in Iowa) as of the trial date, but there  were exceptions. “Equitable distributions require flexibility and concrete rules of distribution  may frustrate the court’s goal of obtaining equitable results.” (In re Marriage of Driscoll)  When determining the value of a closely held business, the courts looked to the “intrinsic  value” of the business. (In re Marriage of Moffatt) An exact value was not required but only  an equitable result. 

The wife’s expert, a CPA and valuation analyst, opined that the value of Bainbridge was  $1,020,597. He used a valuation date of Dec. 31, 2020, “because that was the last date that  complete information was available.” The husband did not engage an expert and determined  a value of Bainbridge of $480,187 using a net asset method of value. 

The trial court found the wife’s expert persuasive and used the Dec. 31, 2020, date due to  incomplete information after that date. The trial court found the husband’s valuation too  volatile and unreliable. His valuations fluctuated “wildly” from date to date. “To some degree,  the court split the difference and adjusted Amanda’s expert valuation down to $800,000  based on outstanding receivables and Bainbridge’s uneven history of success.” The  appellate court agreed with the analysis of the trial court on the value and determined the  $800,000 to be fair and well within the “range of permissible evidence.” (In re Marriage of  McDermott) The husband’s challenge was rejected. 

Troy’s yearly income.

The appellate court also rejected the husband’s challenge to the  determination of his yearly income of $80,000 of draws and yearly distributions from  Bainbridge of $220,000, for a total of $300,000, citing facts related to evidence in the case. 

Spousal support to Amanda.

The appellate court found the amount of support awarded to  the wife as reasonable and affirmed the amount as determined by the trial court. 

Conclusion.

“We affirm the district court’s valuation of Bainbridge, determination of Troy’s  monthly income, and spousal support award. We also decline to order any appellate attorney  fees. Costs are assessed to Troy.”