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
© 2024 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 AllAs a New Year Dawns, the Value of Florida’s Revised Mediation Laws Comes Into Greater Focus
4 minute readData Breaches, Increased Regulatory Risk and Florida’s New Digital Bill of Rights
7 minute readNavigating Florida's Products Liability Law: Defective Products, Warnings and the Pursuit of Justice
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Decision of the Day: 'Attorney's Eyes Only' Protective Order Denied; Good Cause Not Demonstrated
- 2The Crypto Guys Seem to Like Paul Atkins as a New SEC Commissioner, but Will He Be Good for the Securities Industry?
- 3Lawsuits, AI Accuracy and Debt: Legal Tech Companies that Ran Into Trouble in 2024
- 4Preemptive Litigation: A Potential Approach for a Precise Situation
- 5Paxton's 2024 Agenda: Immigration, Climate, Transgender Issues, Social Media, Abortion, Elections
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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