The Oklahoma Bar Journal January 2026

the trial court’s decision, and the case was appealed to the Oklahoma Supreme Court. 28 The wife argued that the trial court should have considered the loss in the business’s value resulting from the husband’s unilateral mis conduct. 29 The husband countered that the parties executed a valid business agreement that established that the valuation date would be the day the divorce proceeding was commenced. Therefore, following the agreed-upon date, any loss in value due to his rival business would be irrelevant. 30 However, the court disagreed. The court pointed out that neither party had followed the business agreement, making the specified provisions irrelevant regarding the business’s value. 31 Additionally, the court held that the trial court erred in failing to consider the decrease in value due to the husband’s misconduct postseparation and remanded the case for recalculation and equitable division. 32 From a litigation perspective, Colclasure suggests that the date that appears most advantageous early in the case may not ulti mately be the most equitable. Furthermore, where one spouse’s conduct leads to the business’s devaluation, the opposing party has a compelling argument that the court’s valuation should reflect the business’s worth absent the misconduct to prevent unjust enrichment. Accordingly, it is cru cial to develop a well-supported evidentiary record to support the proposed date. Relevant evidence should include information on market data, business records, expert testimony or proof of one spouse’s postseparation and/or unilateral acts. 33

dissolution is entered. Because the chosen valuation date can signifi cantly influence the final dollar amount subject to equitable divi sion, attorneys must approach this issue strategically. For instance, if a business has experienced a substantial increase or decrease in profits after the date of separation due to unilateral acts of one spouse, then that fact may weigh heavily on the court’s decision. Similarly, if one party has engaged in financial misconduct or formed a competing business, as in Colclasure v. Colclasure , the valuation date becomes even more pivotal. In Colclasure , the spouses co-owned a business where they both were employed. 20 A few months into the divorce proceed ings, the husband was terminated from the business and subsequently formed a new, competing busi ness. 21 He used the marital com pany’s resources to buy books, samples, mobile phones and trans portation for his new business. 22 The wife further alleged that he was stealing customers from the marital company and underbid ding on contracts. 23 At trial, the wife’s expert valued the business using the “income method” and an “excess earnings method.” 24 The wife’s expert based the valuation on the business records and included money that was misdirected, claiming the husband caused a loss of $298,085.58. 25 The husband presented the testimony of his expert witness, who used a capi talized cash flow method to value the business and did not include any losses due to the husband’s actions. 26 The trial court valued the company at $480,000 and awarded the husband $235,200. 27 The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed

GOODWILL VALUE

A thorough and correct valua tion must account for both tangible and intangible assets, including what is known as a business’s “goodwill value.” Goodwill value refers to the worth of a business’s intangible assets, such as customer loyalty and future growth poten tial. 34 However, it is important to note that not all goodwill value will be considered in the business valu ation inquiry. 35 Thus, it is essential to distinguish between enterprise goodwill and personal goodwill. This is because enterprise goodwill is subject to equitable division, while personal goodwill is not. Enterprise goodwill is the intangible value of a business that exists independently of either spouse. This type of goodwill includes the company’s reputation, established customer base and operational system. 36 It is a mar ketable asset because it has a clear and identifiable value that can be reflected in the sale or transfer of the business. 37 In contrast, per sonal goodwill is directly linked to either spouse’s individual skills, reputation and continued presence in the business. 38 Because of its dependence on a specific person, this type of goodwill will not be considered part of the marital estate. It, therefore, should be excluded when assigning monetary value to the business. 39 Failure to distinguish between the business’s enterprise goodwill and personal goodwill can result in an inaccurate valuation and unjust division of the marital busi ness. For example, In re Marriage of Dorsey , the Oklahoma Court of Appeals did not uphold the trial court’s valuation of the parties’ oil company because the wife’s expert did not distinguish between the

Statements or opinions expressed in the Oklahoma Bar Journal are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Oklahoma Bar Association, its officers, Board of Governors, Board of Editors or staff.

JANUARY 2026 | 27

THE OKLAHOMA BAR JOURNAL