The Oklahoma Bar Journal January 2026

of Colclasure and In re Marriage of Dorsey . Therefore, by thoroughly analyzing the key components of valuation, Oklahoma attorneys can advocate for a division of the marital estate that reflects both the law and the lived realities of the parties involved.

two types of goodwill. 40 In that case, the business’s tangible assets were minimal because the busi ness’s primary purpose was to operate as a shell to protect the parties’ personal liability. 41 The wife’s expert witness testified that the value of the company included a “marketable business goodwill which was distinct from [the] Husband’s reputation and personal efforts.” 42 However, the expert failed to consider how the company’s value and operations would be affected if the husband were to cease doing business through the company, start a new business or choose to retire. 43 Because of this, the court found that the company was overvalued by the trial court, and the case was remanded for recalculation. CONCLUSION Business valuation in divorce proceedings is a complex process that demands legal precision and financial insight. In Oklahoma, where the trial courts’ equitable division does not mean 50/50, attorneys and clients alike must understand that the outcome is shaped by more than own ership titles. As illustrated by Thienlenhaus , Williams , Colclasure and Dorsey , the trial court will consider the property classifica tion, the time of valuation, the goodwill value of the business and the broader context of the business operations. Therefore, it is essential to present expert financial testimony and antici pate challenges, such as a lack of documentation or the effects of marital efforts for business growth. However, even seasoned experts can sometimes provide misguided valuations in good faith, as illustrated by the cases

ENDNOTES 1. Williams v. Williams , 2024 OK CIV APP 8, ¶7, 544 P.3d 960, 963 (“By statute, all property acquired during marriage by the joint industry of the husband and wife must be fairly and equitably divided by the trial court. This is true regardless of how title to the property is held. The marital estate need not necessarily be equally divided to be an equitable division because the words ‘just’ and ‘reasonable’ in 43 O.S. 2021 § 121 are not synonymous with ‘equal.’”). 2. Colclasure v. Colclasure , 2012 OK 97, ¶16, 295 P.3d 1123, 1129. 3. Traczyk v. Traczyk , 1995 OK 22, ¶¶13–14, 891 P.2d 1279, 1285. 4. Colclasure , 2012 OK 97, 295 P.3d 1123 (affirming trial court discretion in selecting valuation date and considering all circumstances). 5. Dorsey v. Dorsey , 2016 OK CIV APP 33, ¶13, 373 P.3d 1084,1087. 6. Okla. Stat. tit. 43 §121(B) (2024). 7. See Williams , 544 P.3d 960, ¶¶310 (considering when the business was formed, how it was financed and ownership/operating contracts). 8. Thienlenhaus v. Thienlenhaus , 1995 OK 5, 890 P.2d 925, 928. 9. Id . 10. Id . 11. Williams , 544 P.3d 960 at 962. 12. Id . 13. Id . at 962-64. The party claiming a premarital business is marital property has the burden of proof to present evidence to the court showing the same. 14. Id . at 968. 15. Id . 16. Id . 17. Id . 18. Id . (citing Thielenhaus v. Thielenhaus, 890 P.2d 925 (Okla. 1995)). 19. Id . 20. Colclasure , 295 P.3d 1123 at 1126-27. 21. Id . 22. Id . 23. Id . 24. Id . 25. Id . 26. Colclasure , 295 P.3d 1123 at 1126-27. 27. Id . 28. Id . 29. Id . 30. Id . 31. Id . at 1128-29. 32. Id. at 1129. 33. Id . 34. Dorsey , 373 P.3d 1084 at 1087. 35. Id . 36. Id . (quoting Travis v. Travis , 795 P.2d 96 (Okla. 1990)). 37. Dorsey , supra note 34.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Jessica S. Bishoff is an Oklahoma attorney practicing primarily in family law. She represents clients

in divorce, child custody and related domestic matters, with experience addressing complex financial issues, such as business valuation in divorce. Ms. Bishoff earned her J.D. cum laude from the OCU School of Law and has a background in criminal justice and victim advocacy, which shapes her clear, practical and client focused approach to family law representation. Molly E. Tipton is the divorce, custody and complex estate matters with strategy and compassion. Known for her calm, client-centered approach, she helps individuals and families navigate difficult transitions with clarity and confidence. A graduate of OSU and the OU College of Law, Ms. Tipton combines financial insight, legal precision and genuine empathy to achieve lasting, balanced resolutions for Oklahoma families. founder and lead attorney of the Tipton Law Firm in Oklahoma City. With more than 12 years of experience, she focuses exclusively on family law, guiding clients through

38. Id . 39. Id. 40. Id . at 1088.

41. Id. 42. Id . 43. Id .

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.

28 | JANUARY 2026

THE OKLAHOMA BAR JOURNAL