Valuing Real Estate Holding Companies in a Decedent's Elective Estate
At first glance, calculating the value of a decedent's elective estate may seem somewhat straightforward. However, experienced probate practitioners know that this calculation is far from easy, particularly when the decedent held interests in jointly owned businesses at the time of death.
February 15, 2018 at 10:25 AM
4 minute read
At first glance, calculating the value of a decedent's elective estate may seem somewhat straightforward. However, experienced probate practitioners know that this calculation is far from easy, particularly when the decedent held interests in jointly owned businesses at the time of death.
A sticking point is often the proper valuation of the decedent's interests in jointly owned corporations. For instance, the personal representative may assign a lower value to these interests than the surviving spouse deems appropriate. In such an instance, the surviving spouse must file an objection to preserve his or her right to contest the valuation. Business valuation experts routinely employ large discounts when determining the fair market value of the decedent's factional interests in businesses. More particularly, minority/lack of control and lack of marketability discounts are frequently utilized to lower the value of these interests. The percentages utilized are very subjective and open to expert debate.
The plot thickens when the sole asset of a company is real estate. Logic dictates that when the sole asset is real estate, the fair market value of the property would control the value of the company and the decedent's interest. For instance, if the decedent owned 50 percent of 123 Main Street Corp., and the sole asset of that corporation is real property with a date of death value of $2 million, one could assume that the fair market value of the decedent's one-half interest is $1 million. This is not necessarily the case.
If a company is owned 50-50, technically the valuation is of a minority/noncontrolling interest. A controlling interest is typically more valuable than a noncontrolling interest. Additionally, despite the fact that no sale is actually taking place, the expert can examine the marketability of the interest as of the decedent's date of death. This takes into account the degree of difficulty associated with selling a fractional interest in an entity, among other factors. But, because marketability and minority/lack of control discounts in this context are based on expert opinions about a theoretical market (which in actuality doesn't exist), a wide range of discounts may be plausibly asserted. For instance, 10- to 40-percent discounts are routinely used.
Florida courts have discretion to determine whether marketability or minority discount should be applied. However, the law is scarce on this exact issue—applying discounts to single asset real estate companies. Nevertheless, courts in other states (New York in particular) have held that the unavailability of discounts is apt where the business consists of nothing more than ownership of real estate. In such an instance, courts have found that the value of the interest equals the amount the individuals would receive if the property were sold at arm's length. Other courts have flat out held that where the subject holding consists solely of real property, a discount for lack of marketability should not be applied.
Whether discounts should be applied to real estate holding corporations for purposes of calculating the value of the elective estate is still up for debate in Florida. If faced with large discounts in the elective estate, you should not concede these values as a surviving spouse, as these interests may have a huge financial impact on the value of your elective share. A surviving spouse should always consult with legal counsel when seeking to obtain his or her elective share.
Jeffrey M. Fauer is a director at Tripp Scott in Fort Lauderdale. His practice focuses on trusts, estates and fiduciary litigation.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllDon’t Forget the Owner’s Manual: A Guide to Proving Liability Through Manufacturers’ Warnings and Instructions
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1'Nation is in Trouble': NY Lawmakers Advance Bill to Set Parameters for Shielding Juror IDs in Criminal Matters
- 2Margolis Edelstein Broadens Leadership With New Co-Managing Partner
- 3Menendez Asks US Judge for Bond Pending Appeal of Criminal Conviction
- 4Onit Acquires Case and Matter Management Software Provider Legal Files Software
- 5As Nonprofits Plead for Answers, Dem AGs Plan Suit to Block Trump Funding Freeze
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250