Forensic Accountant & Business Valuation Expert for Minnesota Matters

Working With Out-of-State Counsel

Joey Friedman, CPA, P.A. is a litigation-focused forensic accounting and business valuation firm engaged by counsel in Minnesota matters. The firm is based in Florida and works nationwide, handling records-based analysis remotely and traveling for deposition and trial testimony as a matter requires. Mr. Friedman has testified in state, federal and foreign courts, for plaintiffs and defendants, in civil, criminal and marital proceedings. The firm does not prepare income tax returns and does not provide tax planning services.

Dissolution in Minnesota is heard in the District Court of the county. Federal matters are heard in the District of Minnesota. Mr. Friedman is regularly engaged in matters in states across the United States, as well as in international matters, and the firm accepts Minnesota engagements in state and federal proceedings alike.

Retaining a forensic accountant from outside the state is common in financial disputes, and in some matters it is preferred:

• Conflict distance. An out-of-state expert is less likely to have prior or ongoing relationships with the parties, their businesses, their banks or their other advisors.
• Records-based work travels. Tracing, valuation and return analysis are performed on documents and data. The location of the analyst does not change what the records show.
• Independence is visible. Where the parties move in the same local professional circles, distance from those circles is easier to explain to a finder of fact.

Why a Minnesota Dissipation Claim Is an Accounting Case

Misconduct is excluded; moving the money is not

The division itself is made without regard to marital misconduct. That does not protect asset movement, because the statute addresses transfers, encumbrances, concealment and disposal separately and on economic terms. The question is never whether someone behaved badly — it is what left the estate, when, and whether it left for a legitimate reason.

The claiming spouse carries the burden, so the analysis has to be built, not alleged

The burden of proof rests on the party claiming that the other moved the assets. That is worth stating plainly because it is the opposite of the arrangement in some other states, where an owner has to disprove a claim once a threshold is crossed. In Minnesota the work is on the claimant from the start.

What that requires is a documented chain rather than an inference: the transfer identified in the records, its timing placed relative to the contemplation or filing of the proceeding, the recipient established, and the absence of a usual-course-of-business or necessities explanation addressed rather than ignored. A claim that rests on “the money is gone and I do not know where” does not carry a burden. A claim that traces the movement does.

The two statutory exceptions are where these cases are actually fought

Transfers in the usual course of business, and payments for the necessities of life, fall outside the provision. So the contested ground is almost always whether a given payment was ordinary. That is a comparison question, and it is answerable: what did this business or household normally pay, to whom, at what intervals, over a period long enough to establish a pattern — and does the transaction in question sit inside that pattern or outside it.

It is also where a weak claim falls apart. Labelling ordinary business payments as dissipation invites the whole analysis to be discredited, so the same baseline that proves the real departures is what protects the credibility of the opinion.

“A fair return on the asset” is a second computation, and it is often overlooked

The court may impute the entire value of the asset and a fair return on it. That is a distinct calculation from the value itself — what the asset would reasonably have earned over the period it was out of the estate. It requires a stated basis and a stated period, and because it compounds over a long proceeding it is frequently the larger of the two figures. A claim that quantifies the asset and ignores the return leaves money on the table.

Personal versus enterprise goodwill

Where a business depends on one individual, part of its value may not transfer to a new owner. The firm calculates and separates the transferable value from the non-transferable value and documents the basis for each. This is a financial calculation, not a legal determination — how that split is treated is a matter for the court under Minnesota law.

Forensic Accounting and Litigation Support

Dissipation Analysis Built to Carry the Burden

Identifying transfers, encumbrances and disposals from the records, placing each in time relative to the proceeding, establishing the recipient, and addressing the usual-course and necessities exceptions directly rather than leaving them to the other side.

Ordinary-Course Baseline

Establishing what the household or business normally spent, to whom and how often, over a period long enough to be meaningful — the comparison that separates a real departure from a routine payment, and that keeps a claim credible.

Fair-Return Computation

Quantifying a reasonable return on assets that left the estate, on a stated basis over a stated period — the second half of the remedy, and often the larger half in a long-running matter.

Hidden Asset Tracing

Following money through business accounts, related entities and personal accounts to establish what exists and where it went — common in dissolution and in partnership disputes where one side controlled the books.

Business Valuation Disputes

Valuation of closely held businesses for marital dissolution, shareholder and partnership disputes and buyouts, including the normalization questions that decide most of these cases: owner compensation, discretionary expenses, related-party transactions and customer concentration.

Economic Damages and Lost Profits

Quantifying what was lost, on a method that survives cross-examination, and identifying where an opposing calculation departs from the records it claims to rest on.

Fraud and Embezzlement Investigations

Reconstruction of what happened from the underlying records — misappropriation, fictitious vendors, payroll schemes and diversion — documented so it can be presented to a court, a board or an insurer.

Rebuttal and Opposing-Expert Review

Review of an opposing expert’s report to identify method departures, unsupported assumptions and figures the underlying records do not support — in Minnesota, very often including whether a dissipation schedule distinguished ordinary payments from genuine departures at all.

Deposition and Trial Testimony

Expert testimony in state, federal and foreign courts, in depositions, mediations, arbitrations including AAA, and jury and non-jury trials, for plaintiffs and defendants alike.

Frequently Asked Questions

My spouse moved money before filing. Can anything be done in Minnesota?

Yes. Where marital assets were transferred, encumbered, concealed or disposed of in contemplation of or during the proceeding, other than in the usual course of business or for necessities, the court compensates the other party and may impute the entire value of the asset plus a fair return on it.

Who has to prove it?

The party making the claim. That is the opposite of how some other states handle it, and it is why these cases are won with a documented chain rather than with suspicion about missing money.

My spouse says the payments were normal business expenses. How is that resolved?

By building a baseline. What did the business or household normally pay, to whom, how often, over a long enough period to show a pattern — and does the transaction in question fall inside or outside it. Without that comparison, “abnormal” is an opinion.

What is the “fair return” part?

A separate figure from the asset’s value: what it would reasonably have earned over the time it was out of the estate. It needs a stated basis and period, and over a long proceeding it can exceed the value of the asset itself.

Does misconduct affect the property division in Minnesota?

The division of marital property is made without regard to marital misconduct. Asset movement is dealt with under its own provision, on economic grounds rather than as a judgement about behaviour.

Which court hears a dissolution in Minnesota?

The District Court of the county.

Can a Florida-based expert work on a Minnesota case?

Yes, and it is common. The analysis is performed on documents and data, which does not depend on the analyst’s location, and the firm travels for deposition and trial testimony as a matter requires.

What records are needed to start?

Several years of bank, brokerage and credit card statements for every account, so a baseline can be built rather than asserted; records of any related entities and of transfers to third parties; and for a business, tax returns and financial statements, the general ledger in native form and payroll records. A dissipation claim needs a longer history than people expect, because the baseline is what carries the burden.

What credentials should a financial expert in a Minnesota matter hold?

For matters that may reach a hearing, the relevant considerations are accounting credentials, experience with the specific analysis at issue, and a record of testifying. Mr. Friedman is a CPA accredited in Business Valuation (ABV) by the AICPA and a member of the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners.

Discuss a Minnesota Matter

Joey Friedman is a CPA accredited in Business Valuation (ABV) by the AICPA, a member of the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners, with more than 25 years in accounting and forensic practice and an expert witness practice serving attorneys and litigants nationwide since 2014. To discuss whether the firm is the right fit for a matter — including scope, timing and whether an out-of-state expert suits the case — call 954-282-9615 or use the contact form. The firm accepts engagements in other states as well — see states served for how the analysis differs elsewhere.