Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
H and W married in November 1988. They separated in July 1997, and H commenced this proceeding the following month. The 21-day trial resulted in the court's 34-page statement of decision. Judgment was entered on August 28, 2002. At that time, H was 51 years old, and W was 59. During and after the marriage and to some extent before, H was a very successful motion picture director, commanding six- to high seven-figure compensation per film. H has to his credit such blockbusters as Die Hard, The Hunt for Red October, and The Thomas Crown Affair. W also pursued a career in motion picture production, and before the marriage, she was earning $195,000 a year as a production company executive. She produced several films during the marriage while accompanying H in his directorial pursuits. H had earned approximately $15 million, and W had earned about $ 1 million. The trial court found H's success is dependent upon his personal skill, experience, and knowledge in the same manner as an attorney, physician, dentist, accountant, editor, architect, or any other professional in high standing. Based for the most part on testimony presented by Arthur De Vany, Ph.D., an economist who is a professor in the Department of Economics of the Institute of Mathematics and Behavioral Sciences at the University of California, Irvine, H had developed an earning capacity and reputation in his profession as a motion picture director which greatly exceeds that of most persons involved in that profession and that H commands a premium for his services. The trial court determined the value of H's goodwill by the “excess earnings” approach. Using this method with some modifications, the trial court determined that H's goodwill at the time of separation was $ 1.5 million. H contends that he does not possess an asset that can be properly classified as goodwill.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co