Proper application of the equitable distribution law has long been recognized as requiring careful adherence to an orderly three-step process of (1) classification, (2) valuation, and (3) distribution or division of the marital assets.1 The first step, classification, has been held to be a question of law.2 The third step, determining the actual division of the marital property between the parties, is largely an exercise in judicial discretion.3
But where does valuation fit on the spectrum that ranges from questions of law at stage one and the exercise of discretion at stage three? Does it properly repose upon that spectrum at all? This is an important matter because in practical terms it raises the question of what level of appellate scrutiny ought to be brought to bear when valuation matters are raised on appeal. The issue of value is really a question of fact.4 Accordingly, the analytical issue upon review of a trial court’s valuation finding is neither a pure question of law nor a question of whether discretion was abused. The real issue is whether the finding of fact is sufficiently supported by the evidence in the trial record.
Methodology Is King
