PROPERTY DIVISION — CLASSIFICATION, VALUATION AND DISTRIBUTION REQUIREMENTS — STIPULATIONS — AGREEMENTS. An agreement at the beginning of an equitable distribution trial as to how a holding company would be valued and divided, and by whom, will be effective to control the proceedings, and a wife’s later argument, that the trial judge erred in letting the company be disposed of the way they agreed, got nowhere in the Court of Appeals. The husband and wife had agreed that the LLC should be divided per its Operating Agreement, and that included letting a mutually-agreed-upon CPA not only value it but divide it by percentages of interest. Thus it hardly made sense to come back and argue that the judge ignored the requirements of §20-107.3 by not going through the identification-classification-valuation-distribution ritual. A more interesting point in this case is that the Court of Appeals also rejected the wife’s argument that 20-107.3A requires that the judge individually classify and hang an individual price tag on each item of property. The appellate court doesn’t interpret it that way. And it does not just say that it wasn’t required in this case because all the judge had to do was follow the stipulated proedure. It expressly says that “we find no such requirement in that Code section.” Pascarella v. McCoy, unpublished, 25 VLW 1102 (1/11/11).
