I have a problem with the "number" is based on certain established
legal principles theory. Why are we still adhering to the idea that
the business evaluation is done a certain way based on Washington case
law in divorce. In one case, this was very problematic because that
number wasnt something the business owner felt reflected the realities
of the business he was running, but the number reached was the number
the wife couldnt get out of her head. Isnt it up to the couple to
decide from the various business evaluation options out there which
method theyd like to see, verses the one that would be imposed if they
went to court?
Stefani Quane
Lawlady Inc.
Bringing Light to the Dark Industry of Divorce
853 NE 68th St
Seattle, WA 98115
206/932-9699
Visit HYPERLINK "http://www.lawlady.com"www.lawlady.com and HYPERLINK
"http://www.lawlady.typepad.com"www.lawlady.typepad.com.
-----Original Message-----
From: CollabLaw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:CollabLaw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of desonier3d
Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2007 10:06 AM
To: CollabLaw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [CollabLaw] Using business evaluator in collaborative law cases
Greetings from the snowy Northwest:
In our Seattle/King County family law practice group, we have been
using a fully collaboratively trained business evaluator (CPA/CVA).
The questions that have surfaced are:
1. When the clients and attorneys engage a business evaluator as part
of the interdisciplinary team, how does he/she balance their so called
neutral role (like a mediator or Certified Divorce Financial Analyst),
with the parties' frequent expectation that this professional is there
to give them information (eg: here's the value of the business "as I
see it based on sound evaluation principles"?
2. How or in what manner does the evaluator attempt to use the
traditional active listening/interest based skills to engage the
parties in the dialog around different options/processes/-procedures in
the evaluative process, so as to bring the parties into the loop?
3. Since in many cases one spouse/partner is engaged in the active
role of running the business, such that the other party may "defer" to
his/her spouse and the evaluator, how is balance achieved?
4. Since most of our cases are in the divorce context, the evaluation
is not for the purpose of a buy out, sale, or other business related
reason. We want a number that slips into the spreadsheet, based on
legal principles of divorce. The business owner then feels compromised
and imposed upon, because, despite an attempt to engage in interest
based discussions in the collaborative process, ultimately the
"number" is based on certain established legal principles, and "it is
what it is". (By the way, if the "number" is ultimately accepted, then
most certainly we can use brainstorming to look at how to fit that
value into the overall property allocation analysis).
5. The evaluator is placed in the awkward position of using his/her
expertise to create a result, yet given the nature of the
collaborative process, we want input. How do you negotiate a
potentially static number? If we do, then we're slipping into the back
and forth of potentially positionally bargaining/debating the
evaluator's work, etc.
6. And finally, the business owner is beholden to his/her role in the
business, or, "Hey, without me, there is no value, so what are we
talking about?"
There are, I'm sure, many other questions around this.
Any thoughts out there?
Thanks!
Don Desonier
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.410 / Virus Database: 268.16.12/631 - Release Date:
1/16/2007
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.410 / Virus Database: 268.16.12/631 - Release Date:
1/16/2007
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
