Johnson v. Johnson
Because receivables were viewed as salary, it would have been error to include them in the assets available for distribution.
Because receivables were viewed as salary, it would have been error to include them in the assets available for distribution.
Accounts receivable and secured accounts receivable were improperly excluded from marital estate.
A\R are assets of the service corp. unless excluded by withdrawal agreement. However, double counting of A/R is error.
No error in including A/R as asset of dental practice where the amount remained relatively static and they were not included as part of H’s income.
Court properly exercised discretion by treating A/R of husband’s medical practice as income, rather than as property. They cannot be counted as both.
No abuse of discretion in treating accounts receivable as an asset.