Forensic Accountant & Business Valuation Expert — States Served

Why the State Matters to the Financial Analysis

Joey Friedman, CPA, P.A. is a litigation-focused forensic accounting and business valuation firm. 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.

The arithmetic of a valuation does not change at a state line. What changes is the question the court is asking, and that decides what has to be computed:

• What goes into the estate. Some states divide only what was acquired during the marriage; others pull the increase in value of separate property in as well. That difference decides whether an inherited account has to be valued at all.
• As of when. A valuation date is an input, not a detail. Where two candidate dates are permitted, the analysis has to be performed on both before anyone knows which one governs.
• Who decides. Where a jury may be asked to divide property rather than a judge, the exhibits and the language of the presentation change even though the computation does not.

Where a business depends on one individual, part of its value may not transfer to a new owner, and the firm calculates and separates the transferable value from the non-transferable value. That is a financial calculation, not a legal determination — how the split is treated is a matter for the court under the law of the state. The same line holds for every figure the firm produces: the work is valuing, tracing and quantifying, and what a court does with the result is for counsel and the court.

States With a Dedicated Analysis Page

• Alabama — the party claiming an exclusion must prove it, and prove the amount.
• Alaska — divides property acquired during the marriage but lets the court INVADE property acquired BEFORE it, retirement benefits included, when the balancing of the equities requires it – and requires the division to fairly allocate the ECONOMIC EFFECT of divorce, naming the income-producing capacity of property as a factor alongside its value.
• Arizona — the mirror image of Washington: separate property is assigned to its owner rather than divided, so characterisation decides ownership, while excessive or abnormal expenditures and concealment of community property remain expressly considerable.
• Arkansas — equal is the default, and any departure must be explained on the record.
• California — community property with two dates doing two different jobs: the separation date fixes what is community, and a later valuation date fixes what it is worth.
• Colorado — the increase in value of separate property is marital with NO passive-versus-active distinction at all, and everything is valued as of the DATE OF THE DECREE rather than separation, so the date-of-marriage value carries half the analysis.
• Connecticut — an all-property state: inheritances, gifts and premarital assets are all divisible, so the usual argument about characterisation largely falls away.
• Delaware — divides marital property WITHOUT REGARD TO MARITAL MISCONDUCT, so fault is out while dissipation stays in as a listed factor, and it EXCLUDES the increase in value of property owned before the marriage, with every claimed exclusion provable only by the specific documents the statute names.
• Georgia — either spouse alone may demand that a jury decide the division of property.
• Hawaii — non-disclosure of income or an asset is a factor the statute names.
• Idaho — the required split is substantially equal IN VALUE CONSIDERING DEBTS, so the net position is the statutory unit, and compelling reasons for departing are undefined and must be built from the enumerated factors.
• Illinois — fault is excluded by statute, but dissipation of marital assets still counts, because dissipation is an economic question rather than a moral one.
• Indiana — a one-pot state: property owned before the marriage or inherited is still divided, and an EQUAL split is presumed, so premarital or inherited origin is a ground for REBUTTING the presumption rather than an exclusion.
• Iowa — all property is divided except inheritances and gifts, and even that gives way where refusal would be inequitable to the spouse OR THE CHILDREN, while the factor list expressly costs retraining to a comparable standard of living and the division cannot later be modified.
• Kansas — ALL property becomes marital at the moment the action commences whatever its origin or title, and the statute itself includes professional goodwill only TO THE EXTENT IT IS MARKETABLE for that particular professional, which is a valuation test written into law.
• Kentucky — premarital appreciation is excluded only TO THE EXTENT it did not result from the parties efforts, so it is apportioned rather than classified, and inherited property AND ITS INCOME lose protection only on SIGNIFICANT activities.
• Louisiana — the one civil-law state, and it reverses the default: income from SEPARATE property is COMMUNITY unless a formal declaration was filed for registry, so the decisive facts are whether a valid declaration exists and when it took effect.
• Maine — DEFINES passive and active appreciation in the statute itself, keeping growth from MARKET FORCES non-marital while growth produced by MARITAL FUNDS or MARITAL LABOUR becomes divisible, and it added ECONOMIC ABUSE as a division factor in 2023.
• Maryland — a court can transfer ownership of only three things, so for everything else the remedy is a MONETARY AWARD, which means the outcome is a cash figure and an omitted or mis-valued asset goes straight into it with no offsetting transfer to absorb the error.
• Massachusetts — the factor list looks forward as well as back, weighing each party opportunity for future acquisition of capital assets and income, so the analysis has to project earning capacity and not only value what exists today.
• Michigan — property owned by one spouse can be reached where the other contributed to its acquisition, improvement or accumulation, and the award is tied to what is equitable rather than capped at the contribution.
• Minnesota — the division ignores marital misconduct, but moving marital assets in contemplation of a dissolution is compensable and the court may impute the whole value PLUS a fair return, with the burden on the spouse making the claim.
• Mississippi — valuation comes first, and it is a question of fact.
• Missouri — conduct during the marriage is an EXPRESS statutory factor where many states exclude it, and the increase in value of non-marital property is marital only where marital ASSETS contributed to it, which is a tracing question about money rather than effort.
• Montana — the court apportions property belonging to either or both HOWEVER AND WHENEVER ACQUIRED, and for premarital, gifted or inherited assets it looks to the OTHER spouse contributions including the nonmonetary contribution of a homemaker.
• Nebraska — the statute states what each remedy is FOR, keeping the property division separate from support, and it constrains earning capacity to employment that does not interfere with the care of minor children in that party custody.
• Nevada — an EQUAL division of community property is required unless the court finds a compelling reason and sets the reasons out IN WRITING, so the analysis has to be documentable enough to support written findings.
• New Hampshire — an equal division is PRESUMED equitable, all property including VESTED AND NON-VESTED benefits is divisible, and the court may not order a sale where one party can fully compensate the other, which makes ability to pay an evidentiary question.
• New York — property is valued as of a date, and which date governs is contestable, so the analysis is performed at each candidate date.
• North Carolina — a third property category, divisible property, captures what happened to the estate between separation and distribution, so passive movement in that window is shared and movement caused by a spouse after separation is not.
• North Dakota — writes the financial mechanics into the statute – the VALUATION DATE is fixed at sixty days before the initially scheduled trial unless the parties agree otherwise, a present-value SOCIAL SECURITY OFFSET must be computed where a government pension replaced social security, and property can be REDISTRIBUTED AFTER JUDGMENT where a party failed to disclose.
• Ohio — passive appreciation on separate property stays separate, and commingling does not destroy separate property unless it can no longer be traced — which puts tracing at the centre of the case.
• Oklahoma — only property acquired by the parties JOINTLY during the marriage is divided, while what a spouse acquired afterwards IN HIS OR HER OWN RIGHT is confirmed to that spouse, and the rule applies whatever the title says, so the case turns on tracing and contribution rather than on the calendar.
• Oregon — the presumption is about CONTRIBUTION rather than the split: both parties are presumed to have contributed equally to acquisitions during the marriage even for separately held property, so rebutting it means proving an absence from a complete record.
• Pennsylvania — the increase in value of separate property is marital even where it grew passively, measured to whichever of two permitted end dates produces the lesser increase.
• Rhode Island — splits one premarital asset into THREE questions – the property itself cannot be assigned, the INCOME it produced during the marriage can, and the APPRECIATION can only to the extent it resulted from the efforts of either spouse – while inheritances and third-party gifts are excluded before, during AND after the marriage.
• South Carolina — misconduct counts only where it AFFECTED THE ECONOMIC CIRCUMSTANCES or contributed to the breakup, and it stops counting after the earliest of three dated events, so conduct must be both quantified and dated.
• South Dakota — gives the whole rule in one sentence – an equitable division of property belonging to either or both whatever the title says, with regard only for equity and the circumstances of the parties and NO list of factors at all – and admits fault only where it is relevant to the ACQUISITION of property during the marriage.
• Tennessee — growth on separate property counts only if each party substantially contributed.
• Texas — community property that behaves almost oppositely to California: there is no separation cutoff, and division is just and right rather than mandatory halves.
• Utah — gives the court the power in one phrase – any EQUITABLE ORDERS relating to property, debts or obligations – with no factor list at all, but expressly allows a COMPENSATING ADJUSTMENT IN THE PROPERTY DIVISION where earning capacity was greatly enhanced through both parties’ efforts, and it moved its whole family law from Title 30 to Title 81 in September 2024.
• Vermont — puts all property HOWEVER AND WHENEVER ACQUIRED before the court and makes title immaterial, but excludes an inheritance interest that has not vested and can still be modified or divested, forbids the court to value an inheritance without competent evidence, and blocks subpoenas to non-parties about their revocable estate plans unless that vesting test is met.
• Virginia — the increase in value of separate property is marital only where marital funds or personal efforts contributed to it, and once contribution is shown the OWNER must prove the gain was passive.
• Washington — community property, but the court disposes of property whether community OR separate, so winning the characterisation argument does not remove an asset from consideration and both estates must be valued.
• West Virginia — presumes an EQUAL division and lets the court move off it only on four measurable grounds, none of them fault, including labour performed in a family business for LESS THAN ADEQUATE COMPENSATION and a career given up or built during the marriage.
• Wisconsin — gifts and inheritances are kept out of the divisible estate unless refusing to divide them would create a HARDSHIP, which is a sufficiency threshold rather than a fairness question, while appreciation produced by both spouses comes in.
• Wyoming — has NO separate-property category at all – the court disposes of the property of the parties with regard to the party through whom it was acquired and the burdens imposed upon it – but walls off veterans’ service-connected disability benefits three ways, barring the court from considering them, indemnifying a spouse for retired pay waived to receive them, or awarding other property as compensation.

Florida and South Florida

The firm’s home market is covered in depth, including county and city coverage across South Florida. Start at the Florida locations page.

Other States

The firm accepts engagements in other states as well, in state and federal proceedings alike. Where no dedicated page appears above, the analysis is scoped at the outset with counsel — which asset categories are in issue, which valuation dates are permitted, and what records exist to support each.

Forensic Accounting and Litigation Support

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 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. If you suspect an employee has been taking money, see when to hire a forensic accountant for suspected employee theft or embezzlement.

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.

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

Can a Florida-based forensic accountant work on a case in another state?

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.

Is there an advantage to retaining an expert from outside the state?

Often. 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 — and where the parties move in the same local professional circles, distance from those circles is easier to explain to a finder of fact.

My state is not listed. Does that mean the firm will not take the case?

No. The pages above are the states where a distinct feature of the property analysis was worth writing up on its own. The firm accepts engagements more broadly, in state and federal proceedings alike.

Does the firm give legal opinions about how my state divides property?

No. The work is financial — valuing, tracing and quantifying. How the resulting figures are treated is a legal question for counsel and the court.

What records are needed to start?

Business tax returns and financial statements, the general ledger in native form, bank and credit card statements and payroll records. Where the increase in value of a separate asset is in issue, statements or valuations at or near the date of marriage are also needed, and reconstructing those is frequently part of the work.

What credentials should a financial expert 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 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.