Cited by

Second, although the court has broad discretion to determine valuation dates to achieve equity, -43 (App. 1986), its equitable determinations about property division must be made without regard to fault, see A.R.S.

(“[T]he choice of a valuation date should be dictated by largely pragmatic considerations, and .

But the superior court properly exercised its discretion and valued the home as of the hearing date, and accepted Wife’s uncontradicted testimony that the home’s value as of the hearing was approximately $900,000, and the home is subject to a $320,000 mortgage, leaving slightly more than $550,000 in equity.

Even ignoring that there were several thousand dollars of principal payments over that period, while the superior court has the discretion to determine an appropriate valuation date, the ruling here did not elect any date.

(“[A] trial court must be allowed to utilize alternative valuation dates.”).

contends that the superior court erred by valuing the practice as of the date of purchase rather than “valuing the business at its present value, time of filing petition or time of dissolution of marriage.” It is well settled that “the selection of a valuation date rests within the wide discretion of the superior court and will be tested on review by the fairness of the result.” –43 (App. 1996).

-43 (App. 1986) (holding that the selection of a valuation date rests within the wide discretion of the family court).

-43 (App. 1986) (“[T]he selection of a valuation date rests within the wide discretion of the trial court and will be tested on review by the fairness of the result.”).

Business Valuation ¶13 Barbara argues the family court abused its discretion when it “excluded Hughes’ calculation of value.” State v. Foshay, No. 2 CA-CR 2014- 0252, 2016 WL 1158118, at *1, ¶ 5 (Ariz. App. March 23, 2016) (reviewing exclusion of expert testimony for abuse of discretion); (reviewing family court’s choice of valuation date for abuse of discretion).

¶13 Father also argues the family court’s calculation is incorrect, and Mother was only entitled to $13,409 — half the market value of the stock at the time the decree was entered.4 However, “the selection of a valuation date rests within the wide discretion of the trial court and will be tested on review by the fairness of the result.” -43 (App. 1986).

“[T]he selection of a valuation date rests within the wide discretion of the trial court and will be tested on review by the fairness of the result.” -43, -08 (App. 1986).

Although a trial court has “wide discretion” in choosing a valuation date, -43, -08 8 CUTTER v. CUTTER Decision of the Court (App. 1986), where findings of fact and conclusions of law are required, an appellate court must be able to discern how and why the trial court chose