COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Chief Judge Fitzpatrick, Judge Bumgardner and
Senior Judge Hodges
TED E. COX
MEMORANDUM OPINION * BY
v. Record No. 3040-00-3 PER CURIAM
MAY 15, 2001
LYNDA T. COX
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF WASHINGTON COUNTY
Charles B. Flannagan, II, Judge
(Robert M. Galumbeck; Dudley, Galumbeck,
Necessary and Dennis, on brief), for
appellant.
(Nancyjean Bradford; Bradford & Smith, P.C.,
on brief), for appellee.
Ted E. Cox (husband) appeals from a final decree of divorce
entered by the circuit court valuing a business of the parties and
directing the equitable distribution of the parties' assets in
accordance with Code § 20-107.3. On appeal, husband contends that
the trial court erred in its (1) valuation of the business; and
(2) in its allocation of the parties' assets because of the
improper valuation. Husband asks that the case be remanded to the
trial court with instructions to find that the business has no
value, or to determine its value by sale. Upon reviewing the
record and briefs of the parties, we conclude that this appeal is
* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not
designated for publication.
without merit. Accordingly, we summarily affirm the decision of
the trial court. See Rule 5A:27.
On appeal, we view the evidence and all the reasonable
inferences in the light most favorable to appellee, as the party
prevailing below. See McGuire v. McGuire, 10 Va. App. 248, 250,
391 S.E.2d 344, 346 (1990).
Background
After the parties married, husband started Fleet Maintenance,
Inc. (Fleet), a truck maintenance facility. During the course of
the marriage, husband was the sole owner of Fleet and it was the
primary source of the couple's income. After twenty-six years of
marriage, husband and Lynda T. Cox (wife) separated in October
1997. On November 21, 2000, the circuit court entered the final
decree of divorce.
Husband and wife each moved the court for an equitable
distribution of the marital estate in accordance with Code
§ 20-107.3. The assets of the parties fell into three categories:
the business, real property, and personalty. After hearing
evidence of the value of the various assets, the court determined
that the value of Fleet was $175,000. The trial court ordered
that Fleet, one parcel of real estate, and a portion of the
personalty be awarded to husband and that the remaining personalty
and real estate be distributed to wife. Additionally, husband was
ordered to make a cash payment of $7,093 to wife.
- 2 -
I.
Both parties presented evidence as to the value of Fleet.
Jeffrey Kyle Stiltner testified that he was an employee of Fleet
for over a year. In early 1997, he negotiated with husband for
the purchase of Fleet. Stiltner agreed to purchase the business
for an amount between $210,000 and $260,000. Stiltner secured a
bank commitment for a loan of $160,000 and planned to finance the
remainder of the purchase price through husband and wife.
Stiltner testified that he did not finalize the deal because he
and his wife decided "not to take on that kind of a headache and
burden."
Husband submitted to the court lists of bills owed by Fleet
and assets owned by Fleet. However, husband did not present the
court with an alternative figure of valuation of the business.
"The burden is on the parties to provide the trial court
sufficient evidence from which it can value their property."
Bosserman v. Bosserman, 9 Va. App. 1, 5, 384 S.E.2d 104, 107
(1989). Fleet's accountant and bookkeeper also testified about
certain debts of the corporation, but did not estimate the value
of the business.
Code § 20-107.3(A) directs that the trial
court value all property of the parties, but
it does not define the term, "value," for
equitable distribution purposes. The statute
does not set the standard of value, that is,
the measure of property's worth for
equitable distribution. "Value" is a
mercurial term; the term has numerous,
distinct meanings. The various meanings are
- 3 -
not interchangeable. The meaning of the
term, "value," depends on what is being
valued, who is interested, and why it is
being valued. A piece of property may have
different values for different purposes.
The purpose for which it is being valued
determines which definition, which standard
of value, is proper. Purpose determines the
standard of value; that, in turn, determines
the appropriate methods of valuation.
Howell v. Howell, 31 Va. App. 332, 338, 523 S.E.2d 514, 517
(2000). "Trial courts valuing marital property for the purpose
of making a monetary award must determine from the evidence that
value which represents the property's intrinsic worth to the
parties . . . ." Bosserman v. Bosserman, 9 Va. App. 1, 6, 384
S.E.2d 104, 107 (1989). The trial court found, based on the
aborted sale of Fleet to Stiltner, that the intrinsic value of
the business was $175,000. "Because intrinsic value must depend
on the facts of the case, we give great weight to the findings
of the trial court." Howell, 31 Va. App. at 339, 523 S.E.2d at
518. Six months before the parties separated, husband drafted a
sales contract for Fleet with a purchase price of $260,000.
Stiltner indicated that a financial institution was prepared to
loan him $160,000 for the purchase of the business. The trial
court did not err in its valuation of Fleet.
II.
The trial court did not err in its valuation of Fleet.
Consequently, it also did not err in its distribution of the
- 4 -
parties' property pursuant to Code § 20-107.3. Accordingly, the
decision of the circuit court is summarily affirmed.
Affirmed.
- 5 -