Colclasure v. Colclasure, 295 P.3d 1123

Wife Lori Colclasure Dean wholly owned Arrow Hardwood Floors, LLC from 1999 to 2004; in 2004 she sold 49% to husband Kent Colleasure for $5,000 with no contemporaneous company valuation.
The Operating Agreement (Dec. 2006) allowed outside activities and direct competition by members, and contained a disqualification provision for dissolution upon divorce.
By 2010 the husband began a competing flooring business using Arrow resources; the parties entered a temporary order and later a trial court divested the husband’s role but he still received Arrow disbursements.
Divorce filed Dec. 28, 2009; trial court valued Arrow at $480,000 with husband’s share $235,200, awarding substantial property division alimony and not adequately addressing offset for diversion or insider competition.
Both sides presented expert valuations in Sept. 2010; the wife’s expert used an income/excess-earnings approach with a 2009 valuation date and diversion of $298,085.58; the husband’s expert used a capitalized cash flow method with a 2009 valuation date and asserted diversion could not be used.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the trial court err by failing to reduce Arrow’s value due to husband’s competition?	Dean argues competition diminished value and requires offset.	Colelasure contends valuation date fixed by contract and post-date competition should not affect value.	Yes; court erred and remanded to value including competition effects.
Should the court set a different valuation date under equity?	Dean asserts equitable authority to adjust valuation date per Thielenhaus.	Colelasure argues date fixed by agreement (Nov. 30, 2009).	Court may set a cut-off date under equity; not bound to contract date.
Was double-dipping properly addressed in valuation and division?	Dean contends money drawn from Arrow during pendency and diverted income were not offset.	Colelasure argues no double-dipping issue for compensation.	Remand to determine extent of diversion/draws and proper adjustment.
Does the outside-activities clause affect whether competition lowers value?	Agreement allows competition; not a basis to discount value.	Competition is a contract term but not necessarily value-determinative.	Valuation may reflect competitive effects despite contract language; requires factual adjustment on remand.

Thielenhaus v. Thielenhaus, 890 P.2d 925 (Okla. 1995) (trial court discretion in asset division; valuation date flexible under equity)
Lemons v. Lemons, 128 P.3d 1113 (Okla. Civ. App. 2006) (general rule about contributions to purchase; gifts presumed; not controlling here)
Shackelton v. Sherrard, 385 P.2d 898 (Okla. 1963) (joint tenants presumed equal interests; not controlling where not jointly held)
Mocnik v. Mocnik, 838 P.2d 500 (Okla. 1992) (double-dipping concept; accounting for withdrawals during divorce)
Teel v. Teel, 766 P.2d 994 (Okla. 1988) (principle that just and reasonable division may differ from equal division)
Phillips v. Phillips, 556 P.2d 607 (Okla. 1976) (equitable division of marital property; weight of evidence standard for review)