Moore v. Moore

Whitney Moore (plaintiff) and Arthur Moore (defendant) married in 2001. The Moores started a business called Candelabra, which was owned 51 percent by Whitney and 49 percent by Arthur. Whitney served as president of Candelabra and was responsible for overseeing all its business operations. Candelabra was a retail business that sold trendy lighting and home products in Charleston in a retail showroom. Whitney had a background in business, marketing, and sales, and she worked on developing strong relationships with contractors and industry suppliers. Arthur occasionally contributed through manual labor or providing ideas for business growth. Whitney, however, was usually the one to implement the ideas. When a recession hit, the Moores mutually agreed to pursue a strategy of converting the company to a website business. Arthur had many ideas regarding expanding the website, but Whitney primarily executed plans to revolutionize the website. The strategy proved successful so that nearly 80 percent of Candelabra’s sales as of June 2011 were from its website. In June 2011, Whitney filed for divorce. At that time, Candelabra’s tangible assets were worth $353,687. The business’s actual market value was much higher. Whitney and Arthur presented conflicting expert testimony regarding the company’s valuation and the percentage attributable to (1) enterprise goodwill and (2) Whitney’s personal goodwill. The family court relied exclusively on Arthur’s expert’s valuation and found that 90 percent of the goodwill of the company was enterprise goodwill that would be included in the marital estate and equitably distributed. The parties appealed. Whitney argued that the court erred in including any goodwill in the marital estate.