Forensic Accountant & Business Valuation Expert for Missouri 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 Missouri 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 of marriage in Missouri is heard in the Circuit Court of the county. Federal matters are heard in Missouri’s two federal judicial districts — the Eastern District and the Western District. Mr. Friedman is regularly engaged in matters in states across the United States, as well as in international matters, and the firm accepts Missouri 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, contribution and valuation 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 Two Rules That Shape a Missouri Engagement

Appreciation turns on whether marital money went in

The increase in value of non-marital property is excluded from the marital estate unless marital assets contributed to the increase. That is a narrower and more concrete test than the one several other states apply, and it is worth being precise about why.

Some states ask whether a spouse’s efforts caused the growth, which invites an argument about causation. Missouri’s test points at assets — marital money that went into the property. Did marital earnings pay the mortgage, fund the renovation, cover the capital call, service the debt, or get reinvested into the business? Those are entries in a record, not matters of opinion, and where they exist they can be identified, dated and quantified.

The practical consequence is that the engagement usually begins with tracing rather than with valuation. Establishing that marital funds went in is what opens the increase to division at all; measuring the increase comes second, and measuring it without first establishing the contribution answers a question the statute has not reached.

Conduct is expressly in the list, which changes what evidence is worth gathering

The statute directs the court to consider the conduct of the parties during the marriage, alongside the economic circumstances of each spouse, each spouse’s contribution to the acquisition of the marital property including contribution as a homemaker, the value of the non-marital property set apart to each, and custodial arrangements.

Where a state excludes misconduct, financial behaviour has to be framed purely as an economic effect on the estate. Missouri does not require that framing, so conduct with a financial dimension — spending, transfers, concealment, the handling of joint resources — can be presented as what it is. That does not lower the evidentiary bar. It raises the value of quantifying it properly, because a documented pattern carries weight that an accusation does not.

Debts are divided too, and they are frequently under-analysed

The court divides marital property and marital debts. A schedule that values assets carefully and treats liabilities as a footnote produces a misleading picture of the estate — particularly where debt was incurred late, secured against a specific asset, or used to fund something one spouse retained. Liabilities belong on the same footing as assets, with the same attention to when they arose and what they paid for.

The presumption is strong, so the exceptions must be proved

All property acquired by either spouse after the marriage and before a decree is presumed marital, and that presumption is overcome only by showing the property came in through one of the statutory exceptions — gift, bequest, devise or descent, or acquisition in exchange for property owned before the marriage. Again the work is tracing: an exception asserted is not an exception proved.

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 Missouri law.

Forensic Accounting and Litigation Support

Marital-Contribution Tracing on Non-Marital Assets

Identifying and quantifying marital funds that went into a non-marital asset — mortgage payments, renovations, capital contributions, debt service, reinvested earnings — dated and sourced, because that is what opens the increase in value to division under Missouri’s test.

Increase-in-Value Measurement

Valuing the non-marital asset across the relevant period once the marital contribution is established, so the second question is answered on evidence rather than assumed from the first.

Conduct and Expenditure Analysis

Quantifying financial conduct against a documented baseline — spending, transfers, concealment and the handling of joint resources — so it is presented as a measured pattern rather than an allegation.

Marital Debt Schedules

Treating liabilities with the same rigour as assets: when each debt arose, what it funded, what it is secured against, and which spouse retained the benefit.

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.

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.

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 Missouri, very often including whether an appreciation claim established that marital assets contributed at all, or simply measured the growth.

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 house was mine before the marriage and it has doubled in value. Is that increase shared?

Only to the extent marital assets contributed to the increase. If marital earnings paid the mortgage or funded improvements, that is the connection the statute looks for. If nothing marital went in, the increase is generally not marital.

How is that different from other states?

Several states ask whether a spouse’s efforts caused the growth, which becomes an argument about causation. Missouri points at marital assets going in, which is a records question — identifiable, dateable and quantifiable.

Does my spouse’s behaviour during the marriage matter?

The conduct of the parties during the marriage is one of the factors the statute directs the court to consider. Many states exclude misconduct from property division; Missouri lists it. Quantifying financial conduct still matters — a documented pattern carries weight an accusation does not.

What happens to our debts?

Marital debts are divided along with marital property. When each debt arose, what it funded and who retained the benefit are all relevant, and liabilities deserve the same analysis as assets.

Everything is in my spouse’s name. Does that matter?

Very little. Property acquired during the marriage is presumed marital, and that presumption is overcome only by proving one of the statutory exceptions — which is a tracing exercise, not an assertion.

Which court hears a dissolution in Missouri?

The Circuit Court of the county.

Can a Florida-based expert work on a Missouri 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?

Account statements covering the periods when marital funds may have gone into a non-marital asset; mortgage, renovation, capital-contribution and debt-service records for that asset; documentation of any gift or inheritance and what it was exchanged for; full liability records; and for a business, tax returns and financial statements, the general ledger in native form, bank and credit card statements and payroll records. The payment records that show marital money going in are the priority, because without them the increase is not reached at all.

What credentials should a financial expert in a Missouri 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 Missouri 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.