The Business Breakup: The Realities of Business Division in Oregon Divorce
カートのアイテムが多すぎます
カートに追加できませんでした。
ウィッシュリストに追加できませんでした。
ほしい物リストの削除に失敗しました。
ポッドキャストのフォローに失敗しました
ポッドキャストのフォロー解除に失敗しました
-
ナレーター:
-
著者:
Send us Fan Mail
Your business is not “just an asset.” For a lot of owners, it’s years of risk, late nights, pride, and a sense of security for the future. That’s why business ownership in an Oregon divorce can turn into one of the most intense parts of the entire case, and why the wrong assumption early on can cost you later.
We sit down with Lewis Landerholm to map out what actually needs to be answered when a company is on the table: Is it marital property or is there a credible separate property claim tied to premarital value or limited marital contribution? What happens when a spouse works in the business and gets underpaid? How do you handle the very real “double dipping” problem where the business is valued for property division and the business income is still used in spousal support?
Then we get practical about business valuation. Different industries require different expertise, and expert opinions can land far apart, sometimes by hundreds of thousands of dollars. We also dig into the messy edge cases that show up in real life: OLCC and other regulated licenses, cannabis-related complications, intellectual property like copyrights, and whether an asset can even be transferred the way people assume. Finally, we talk about entity structure, bylaws, partners, enforcement language in the judgment, and why mediation often gives business owners the time and flexibility that court can’t.
If you’re facing divorce with a business involved, subscribe for more straight answers, share this with someone who needs it, and leave a review so more Oregon families can find the guidance.
If you would like to speak with one of our attorneys, please call our office at (503) 227-0200, or visit our website at https://www.pacificcascadelegal.com.
Disclaimer: Nothing in this communication is intended to provide legal advice nor does it constitute a client-attorney relationship, therefore you should not interpret the contents as such.