Drake v. Drake (1991)

Drake v. Drake, 809 S.W.2d 710, 713 (Ky.App.1991).

Wife argues first that the trial court erroneously relied upon Husband’s expert’s valuation because it was based exclusively upon the Agreement, Relying upon Drake v. Drake, 809 S.W.2d 710, 713 (Ky. Ct. App. 1991), she argues that “the majority position on this issue” is that a buy-sell agreement for a closely held corporation which provides a method for setting value on its shares for purposes of distribution is not binding; rather, it is to be weighed with other factors in…

He cites to Drake v. Drake, 809 S.W.2d 710, 713 (Ky. Ct. App. 1991), for the proposition that “the majority position on this issue is that a buy-sell agreement for a closely held corporation which sets or provides a method for setting value on its shares for purposes of distribution is not binding [upon a spouse in a divorce action], rather it is to be weighed with other factors in determining value.” We need not decide whether we agree with the view adopted in Drake because…

See also Money v. Money, 852 P.2d 1158, 1161 (Alaska 1993); Drake v. Drake, 809 S.W.2d 710, 713 (Ky. App. 1991); In re Marriage of Keyser, 820 P.2d 1194, 1196 (Colo. App. 1991); Bosserman v. Bosserman, 384 S.E.2d 104, 108 (Va. App. 1989).