Gien v. Gien (Lawyers Weekly No. 15-16-0893, 30 pp.) (Linda Stephens, J.) Appealed from Mecklenburg County District Court (Gary Henderson, J.) N.C. App. Unpub.
Holding: Evidence of the original cost of the parties’ shares of Australian company InMatrix was insufficient to show the value of those shares, especially since there was evidence that InMatrix was losing significant amounts of money.
The equitable distribution order is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
As to the value of defendant’s company Lightening in a Jar, plaintiff showed that, according to the asset approach, its value was at least $350,000. Based on defendant’s investment in the company, plaintiff showed it would take about $350,000 for someone to create the software that was the company’s main asset.