Forensic Accountant & Business Valuation Expert for Vermont 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 Vermont 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 Vermont is heard in the Superior Court, Family Division. Federal matters are heard in the District of Vermont. Mr. Friedman is regularly engaged in matters in states across the United States, as well as in international matters, and the firm accepts Vermont 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. Vermont’s professional community is a small one, and family wealth often runs through the same local advisors on both sides.
• Records-based work travels. Valuation and tracing 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 Vermont Case

Everything is in front of the court, but separate property need not be disturbed

The statute is about as broad as they come: all property owned by either or both of the parties, however and whenever acquired, is subject to the jurisdiction of the court, and title — in either name, both, or a nominee — is immaterial. Premarital property, gifts and inheritances are not placed outside the court’s reach by category.

The sentence does not stop there, though, and the rest of it matters: title is immaterial except where equitable distribution can be made without disturbing separate property. So the breadth is a power, not an instruction. Where the marital estate is large enough to reach a fair result on its own, separate property can be left alone; where it is not, separate property is available.

That turns “how much is in the divisible pot” into a threshold question rather than an accounting formality, because the size of the marital estate is what determines whether separate property has to be touched at all. Establishing it properly — and establishing what is genuinely separate — is the work that decides how far the case reaches.

An expected inheritance turns entirely on whether it has vested

Vermont addresses this directly, which most states do not. Among the factors is the opportunity of each party for future acquisition of capital assets and income, and the statute then sets limits on how that factor may be used:

• The court may consider the parties’ lifestyle, decisions made during the marriage and other competent evidence relating to expectations of gifts or an inheritance.
• The court shall not speculate as to the value of an inheritance, or make a finding as to its value, unless there is competent evidence of that value.
• An interest in an inheritance that has not yet vested and is capable of modification or divestment is not included in the marital estate.

Read together, those set a clear evidentiary bar. An expectancy under a will that can still be rewritten, or a beneficial interest under a revocable trust, is not marital property — and a number cannot simply be attached to it. The analysis therefore begins with the instrument, not the estimate: what the interest actually is, whether it has vested, and whether anyone retains the power to change or remove it.

Where an interest is vested and cannot be divested, the position reverses and valuation becomes both permitted and necessary — and it has to be a valuation supported by competent evidence rather than an assumption about what a family is worth.

The other side’s parents cannot be dragged in — unless the interest is vested

The statute protects people who are not parties to the divorce. A non-party may not be subpoenaed to produce documents or testify about their assets, income or net worth, or about their revocable estate planning instruments, unless the matter relates to a party’s interest in an instrument that is vested and not capable of modification or divestment.

This changes how a case is built. The familiar approach — subpoena the parents, obtain the trust documents, value the expectancy — is not available in Vermont unless the vesting threshold is met first. What the statute does preserve is discovery of and testimony by the parties themselves, which is expressly untouched.

So the evidence has to be assembled from what the parties hold and what they have received: distributions actually taken, tax reporting of trust or estate income, transfers into the marriage, and instruments already in a party’s possession. Whether the vesting threshold is met is itself usually a documentary question, and it is the question worth answering before any discovery strategy is committed to.

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 Vermont law.

Forensic Accounting and Litigation Support

Vesting and Divestment Analysis

Establishing from the instruments and the records whether an interest in a trust or estate has vested and whether it remains capable of modification or divestment — the threshold that decides both inclusion in the estate and what discovery is available.

Valuation Supported by Competent Evidence

Where an interest does qualify, valuing it on evidence rather than assumption, and identifying where an opposing figure rests on speculation about family wealth that the statute does not permit.

Trust and Estate Distribution Tracing

Following distributions actually received into the parties’ accounts and assets, using the parties’ own records and tax reporting, since that evidence remains available where third-party discovery does not.

Marital Estate Quantification

Establishing the size and composition of the divisible estate, which in Vermont also determines whether an equitable result can be reached without disturbing separate property at all.

Business Valuation Disputes

Valuation of closely held businesses 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 Vermont, very often including whether an inheritance was valued on competent evidence or simply assumed.

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

Is my premarital property safe in Vermont?

Not by category. All property owned by either or both parties, however and whenever acquired, is subject to the court’s jurisdiction, and title is immaterial. The statute does add that title is immaterial except where an equitable distribution can be made without disturbing separate property, so the size of the marital estate affects whether separate property is reached.

My spouse expects a large inheritance. Is it part of the divorce?

An interest that has not vested and is still capable of modification or divestment is not included in the marital estate. The court may consider expectations of a gift or inheritance when weighing each party’s opportunity for future acquisition of assets, but it may not make a finding as to value without competent evidence of that value.

Can we subpoena my spouse’s parents for their trust documents?

Generally no. A person who is not a party may not be subpoenaed about their assets, income or net worth, or about their revocable estate planning instruments, unless it relates to a party’s interest in an instrument that is vested and not capable of modification or divestment. Discovery of the parties themselves is not limited.

What does “vested and not capable of divestment” actually mean in practice?

It is a question about the instrument rather than the family. It turns on whether anyone retains a power to change, revoke or redirect the interest. Establishing it is usually done from documents already in a party’s possession, and it should be settled before a discovery strategy is built around it.

Does it matter whose name an asset is in?

No. The statute says title is immaterial, whether property is held in either name, both names or a nominee.

What if my spouse contributed nothing financially?

Contribution to the acquisition, preservation and appreciation or depreciation of the respective estates is a listed factor, and it expressly includes the non-monetary contribution of a spouse as a homemaker.

Which court hears a divorce in Vermont?

The Superior Court, Family Division.

Can a Florida-based expert work on a Vermont 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?

For a trust or estate question, any instrument in a party’s possession, records of distributions actually received, and the tax reporting of any trust or estate income. For the marital estate, the usual account, property and liability records for both parties. For a business, tax returns and financial statements, the general ledger in native form, bank and credit card statements and payroll records. Schedule K-1s and distribution records are the items to request first — they are held by the party, so they remain available even where the instrument itself and its maker are out of reach.

What credentials should a financial expert in a Vermont 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 Vermont 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.