Representative image generated using AI
An Arizona couple built three businesses during their marriage, including a car-rental venture; during their divorce, the husband disputed a $305,800 business valuation and $95,000 in alleged loans, but an appeals court upheld the lower court’s rulingAn Arizona appeals court has upheld a divorce ruling that split a couple’s three businesses and refused to share $95,000 in loans the husband said were marital debt. The court found the husband’s loan papers lacked credibility, and it accepted a $305,800 valuation of one company even though he refused to give the expert his financial records. The decision, issued October 30, 2026, is a non-precedential memorandum, so it does not set a rule for other cases. In December 2023, the wife filed for divorce and served the husband a week later. The expert still reached a value of $305,800, and the trial court accepted it.
He also said the expert was biased. It said the expert explained his work and listed the documents he used. The Maricopa County Superior Court held a one-day trial to split the couple’s debts, property, and businesses. The husband later appealed, representing himself. After filing the appeal, the court appointed an expert, chosen by both spouses, to value the first company. The expert asked the husband for payroll records and tax forms, however, he refused to hand them over. The husband wasn’t happy with the valuation. He argued that the business had no hard assets and that the expert focused too much on one unusually profitable year. The appeals court disagreed. A zero value, the court noted, would ignore goodwill, which can carry real money in a business.
Because he never testified and his spreadsheets did not show how the wife had wasted money, his claims about money being wasted failed. Eventually, the husband agreed to give the business to the wife with no payment to him, even though he had taken the opposite position for most of the case. The court awarded it to her.
The appeals court said the facts supported this approach. The husband failed to disclose profits or tax gains during the case. The cars were worth less than what was owed, and that difference is called negative equity. The court split the negative equity. It gave the husband the cars, the profits he had taken, and the tax benefits. The wife was responsible for half the gap, minus an offset for what the husband owed her from other property.