Marriage of Arneson v. Arneson
25% discount for minority interest and lack of marketability affirmed.
In Re Marriage of Liddle v. Liddle
Discount for lack of control was proper.
In Re Marriage of Popp v. Popp
Husband’s testimony alone insufficient to warrant discount factor for nonmarketability and minority position. Expert opinion needed.
In Re Marriage of Schorer v. Schorer
Accepting Bonfield’s valuation of canning business not clearly erroneous. Bonfield used a 20% premium because of husband’s controlling interest and a 20% discount for reduced marketability.
Leighton v. Leighton
Compensation for bodily impairment is not divisible property.
Pfeil v. Pfeil
Military retirement benefits based on physical disability are not divisible assets in divorce.
Marriage of Loveland v. Loveland
(1) No federal preemption in treating military disability benefits as marital property subject to division in divorce actions. (2) Division of benefits affirmed where H elected for tax reasons to receive part of his retirement benefits as disability payments.
In Re Marriage of Weberg v. Weberg
Veteran’s disability payments are income for purposes of determining maintenance. (See detailed concurring opinion).
Topolski v. Topolski
To the extent disability payments replace a disabled spouse’s post-divorce wages, they are income and are individual property, not subject to division at divorce. Alternatively, to the extent disability benefits replace deferred compensation, it is subject to property division at divorce.
Dickau v. Dickau
Wife was entitled to husband’s disability benefits where husband opted to received disability benefits in lieu of pension benefits.