In Re Marriage of Ackerman

Summary

Husband's plastic surgery practice was valued as of the date of separation using excess earnings. Each side's expert used a different compensation survey, and the trial court set reasonable compensation at $544,000 using its own judgment, with the surgical center treated as part of the practice. The trial court also set spousal support with step-downs, imputing $3,000 monthly earning capacity and a 4.3 to 4.5 percent return on assets to wife, and used the guideline formula for child support. The Court of Appeal affirmed both judgments under the abuse of discretion and substantial evidence standards.

What it means for the financial analysis

The court accepted reasonable compensation set from a national survey used as a baseline and tied to the practice's own revenue and income history, but it did not hold that any particular survey is required. Experts on excess earnings should expect the court to weigh survey relevance to the subject practice, and income analyses can support imputed earning capacity and asset returns with vocational evidence and reasonable interest rates.

Also available on CourtListener.