Forensic Accountant & Business Valuation Expert for Mississippi 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 Mississippi 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.

Divorce in Mississippi is heard in the Chancery Court. Federal matters are heard in the Northern and Southern Districts of Mississippi. Mr. Friedman is regularly engaged in matters in states across the United States, as well as in international matters, and the firm accepts Mississippi 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. Valuation and earnings 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.

The Three Things That Decide a Mississippi Case

Valuation is the first step, not the last

Most states divide property and treat the numbers as an input somewhere along the way. Mississippi’s appellate courts have said where the numbers belong in the sequence: “Property division should be based upon a determination of fair market value of the assets, and these valuations should be the initial step before determining division.” The same line of cases holds that “[t]he valuation of property is a question of fact.”

Two consequences follow, and both are practical. A question of fact is decided on the evidence actually put in front of the court, which means a valuation is only as strong as the record supporting it. And because valuation comes first, an engagement that begins after the division has been argued is starting in the wrong order.

What this rewards is unglamorous: fair market value established on a recognised method, documented well enough to be followed, and every figure traceable to a source document rather than to a summary.

Three of the eight factors are financial questions

Mississippi has no statute setting out how marital property is divided. The framework comes from Ferguson v. Ferguson, 639 So. 2d 921 (Miss. 1994), and Mississippi’s appellate courts still recite its eight factors today:

• the contribution to the accumulation of property;
• the dissipation or prior distribution of assets;
• the market and emotional value of the assets subject to distribution;
• the value of assets not subject to distribution;
• the tax and economic consequences of the distribution;
• the extent to which property division may eliminate the need for alimony;
• the financial-security needs of the parties; and
• any other factor that in equity should be considered.

The three shown in bold are accounting questions before they are anything else. The second factor — dissipation or prior distribution — is a tracing question, which makes four of the eight substantially financial. A report organised around the factors the court must weigh is easier for a court to use than one organised around the analyst’s own headings.

An unrebutted valuation tends to stand

Because valuation is a question of fact, the court works from the evidence before it. In a 2025 Mississippi Court of Appeals decision the chancellor adopted one side’s expert valuation, noting that the other party “disputed [the] valuation but presented neither expert testimony to rebut . . . nor caselaw to support his position.” The division was affirmed.

The practical reading works in both directions. A party putting forward a valuation should expect it to carry the asset if it is not answered. A party facing one has a narrow choice: rebut it with evidence, or accept the number. Argument alone did not displace it.

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 Mississippi law.

Forensic Accounting and Litigation Support

Fair Market Value Determination

Establishing fair market value on a recognised method, documented so the court can follow it from the source records to the conclusion — the step Mississippi’s appellate courts place before the division rather than alongside it.

Tax and Economic Consequence Analysis

Quantifying what each side actually receives after the tax and economic consequences of a proposed split, which is one of the eight factors by name — two schedules can total the same figure and deliver very different outcomes.

Dissipation and Prior-Distribution Tracing

Following what was spent, withdrawn, transferred or otherwise disposed of, and when — the evidentiary work behind the dissipation factor, which is answered by records rather than by recollection.

Complete Asset and Interest Identification

Establishing what actually exists before anything is valued — entity interests, deferred and contingent compensation, receivables and interests in trusts or estates — including the assets outside the division, which the factors require the court to weigh.

Business Valuation Disputes

Valuation of closely held businesses and professional practices for divorce, 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.

Hidden Asset Tracing

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

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 Mississippi, very often the difference between disputing a valuation and actually rebutting it.

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

Does Mississippi have a statute that says how property is divided?

No. Mississippi divides marital property under a framework the Supreme Court of Mississippi established in Ferguson v. Ferguson in 1994, and its appellate courts continue to apply the eight Ferguson factors today. There is no property-division statute supplying those factors.

When should the valuation work be done?

Before the division is argued. Mississippi’s appellate courts have said valuations “should be the initial step before determining division,” so an analysis that arrives after positions are set is arriving out of sequence.

What happens if only one side puts in a valuation?

Because valuation is a question of fact, the court decides on the evidence in front of it. In a 2025 Court of Appeals decision the chancellor adopted the only expert valuation offered, noting the other party disputed it but presented neither rebuttal testimony nor authority. Disputing a number is not the same as rebutting it.

Which of the eight factors involve accounting work?

Three name financial questions directly — the market value of the assets being divided, the value of assets outside the division, and the tax and economic consequences of the split. A fourth, dissipation or prior distribution of assets, is a tracing question. Half the framework, in practice.

Which court hears a divorce in Mississippi?

The Chancery Court.

Can a Florida-based expert work on a Mississippi 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?

Tax returns with every schedule, entity documents, and account and loan records. For a business or practice, the general ledger in native form, bank and credit card statements and payroll records. For a dissipation question, complete account histories covering the period in dispute rather than selected statements. Because valuation comes first in Mississippi, the records that establish value are the ones worth chasing hardest and earliest.

What credentials should a financial expert in a Mississippi 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 Mississippi 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.