Material for National Business Institute Lecture, February 2002; Published  in the Fall 2006 Volume of the American Journal of Family Law

“Fair market value is the price a willing buyer would pay and a willing seller would accept in the ordinary course of business when neither person is being compelled to act.” City of North Charleston v. Claxton, 315 S.C. 56, 431 S.E.2d 610, 612 (Ct.App. 1993). It is amazing how this simple principal is forgotten when parties attempt to equitably divide property.

I once handled an appeal in which one of the issues was the valuation of the marital home. It was one of the nicest homes in a very small community and the husband’s family had actually built the home over a period of years, though the wife remained in the home pendente lite. The parties’ experts had wildly varying valuations of the home: wife and her expert giving it a ridiculously low value; husband and his expert giving it a more reasonable value.

Husband’s attorneys did a remarkable job trying the case but they failed to ask wife a very simple and obvious question: “Would you be willing to allow your husband to keep the house at the price you value it?” The answer would have been obvious (when my client offered to buy the house at almost 20% over wife’s valuation she refused) and it would have destroyed wife’s argument on the value of the house better than producing a mountain of appraisals. Had husband been asked if he would purchase the property at the valuation he was claiming, he might well have answered yes.

Reading this transcript made me realize how ridiculous it is to have a bunch of testimony or appraisals on the value of most marital property. If value is the price a willing buyer and a willing seller would reach on the item, then simply have the parties bid on the item and award it to the highest bidder. By this method most marital property can be divided in a quick and effective manner.

In the example of the marital home above, had the court awarded the property to the husband and valued it for equitable distribution at the value he placed on it, both parties would have been better off. Wife, whose value on the property was almost $50,000.00 lower than husband’s, would get a $25,000.00 windfall (if her claim on the home’s value was accurate) and husband would get the property at the value he wanted.

Auctioning off marital property forces both parties to be reasonable on their valuations. A party seeking to keep property at a low value runs the risk of being outbid and not keeping the property. A party seeking to saddle the other party with property at a high value runs the risk of keeping the property at its high valuation.

An example: husband and wife are bidding on husband’s gun collection. You represent wife. Husband decides he is not going to bid much for the guns because he knows wife does not want them. The bidding stops at $200.00 even though wife knows the guns are worth more than that. How do you advise wife?

You tell wife to buy the guns and pawn them. If they are worth much more than $200.00 she makes a tidy profit. If they are not worth more than $200.00 she should not complain about the value husband is giving them. The nice thing about this auction method it is requires parties to “put their money where their mouth is.”

Assume wife bids the guns up to $500.00 and you now represent Husband. “Aw,” he complains, “she is just bidding a lot because she knows I want the guns.” How do you advise husband?

You ask him, can you get the same guns for less than $500.00? If not, do you want the guns? If he says the guns are not worth $500.00, tell him to let wife keep the guns and buy new guns. She has now overspent on guns to spite her husband but he gets the last laugh as he can replace the guns at a lower cost then they cost his wife. If he says the guns are worth at least $500.00 and that he wants them, he should keep bidding.

The beauty of this method is that people quickly settle on the true value of items and that a spiteful bidder often pays for his or her spite. A party who overbids, thinking the other party will overpay for the property, may find the bid accepted and the other party purchasing similar property for less elsewhere.

At the end of the auction, one should have a table much like the one below:


Townhouse Equity04500
1970 Chevy Nova, including dashboard, molding, tail light, chrome bumper molding, 350 engine35000
Alpine Car stereo0400
Alpine amplifiers0200
End table080
Coffee table060
Brass Lamps020
Dining room table075
21” Magnovox TV0150
17” Sharpe TV0100
China Cabinet075
Queen Bed0150
Cassette Tapes023
Shop Vac020
Tool Box020
Can Opener03
Answering Machine010
Sportsman II Racing Heads8000
Cam Kit3690
Nova Trunk Pan1500
2 Ton Floor Jack200
Drive on ramp150
Jack Stands200
Camero Back glass1500
Camero Side glass2400
Cordless phones030
Z-28 T-tops (2)0400
Various tools0300
Bazooka tubes2000
Nintendo games030
Big jar of pennies060
Jar of dimes/nickels/quarters040
Craftsman tool set0150
Property damage claim3354.140
Grand Total8918.148181

If the parties had intended a 50/50 split on the marital estate, husband would end the auction by writing wife a check for $368.57, which would give both parties marital property worth $8,549.57. However a 50/50 split of property is not required to make the auction work. If the parties had agreed on a 60/40 split for wife, husband would write wife a check for $2,078.48. This is because the total marital property is worth $17,099.14. Sixty percent of that figure is $10,259.48, so wife needs $2,047.48 to bring her up to that figure.

The auction method can even be used for dividing marital debts as it was in the example below:


Marital Home Equity046,245.75
Visa debt0-3,730.10
Discover debt0-4,714.54
Child’s concert saxophone debt0-936.52
Child’s saxophone debt0-308.57
Home repairs0-492.56
Doctors’ bills0-821.82
Home appraisal0-300
1995 Ford Windstar02,307.62
Husband’s retirement2,860.470
Wife’s retirement01,151.86
Husband’s employer stocks18,545.220
Kitchen table and chairs1300
Dining room table and chairs0150
Den Couch0110
2 Pink Chairs080
Entertainment Center (single book case, corner shelf, 2 corner shelves, book case with glass)0250
Oriental Rug in den0100
32” TV in den0150
VCR in den075
Tape Cabinet015
China Cabinet0175
Dining room rug0275
Tall Storage Shelf in dining room050
Wall Cabinet w/mirror075
Oriental rugs in foyer010
Curio Cabinet075
Oriental rug in living room0500
Gardening equipment020
Patio Furniture025
Rice bed, mattress, box spring0100
High boy chest0100
Oriental rug in bedroom010
Large chest of drawers/mirrors0150
Round Rattan Table w/glass10
Mitsubishi stereo system1800
Emerson VCR350
Grand total21856.6941024.12

Put Mr. Forman’s experience, knowledge, and dedication to your service for any of your South Carolina family law needs.

Recent Blog Posts

Court of Appeals determines homosexual couples could not enter common law marriage prior to the Condon case

A July 1, 2020, Court of Appeals opinion in Swicegood v. Thomson determined that South Carolina code prohibited homosexual couples from forming the

[ + ] Read More

College related child care is not work-related child care for the purpose of setting child support

There are a number of South Carolina family court opinions that are of narrow relevance but of significant importance when relevant. Such cases

[ + ] Read More

South Carolina Supreme Court uses James Brown’s estate case to clarify validity of subsequent marriage when prior marriage was void

The June 17, 2020 South Carolina Supreme Court case of In Re Estate of Brown appears to finally resolve the estate of the

[ + ] Read More