delivered the opinion of the court:
Thе petitioner, James O. Alexander, appeals a judgment of dissolution entered by the circuit court of Saline County dissolving his marriage to the respondent, Valery M. Alexander. On appeal, James raises the following six issues: (1) whether the circuit court erred in admitting David Wood’s testimony regarding the value of enterprise goodwill in James’s medical practice, (2) whether the circuit court erred in its valuation of James’s medical practice, (3) whether the circuit court’s award of interim attorney fees to Valery violated section 501(c — 1) of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act (Act) (750 ILCS 5/501(c — 1) (West 2002)), (4) whether the .circuit court erred in its final award of attorney fees, (5) whethеr the circuit court erred in its valuation of James’s Vanguard accounts, and (6) whether the circuit court erred in its award of child support. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court.
The parties in this case were married on August 10, 1985. Three children were born to the marriage: Logan, born October 2, 1988, Ethan, born May 22, 1992, and Megan, born December 28, 1993. The parties separated in July 1999. On November 6, 2001, James filed a petition to dissolve the marriage. A dissolution hearing was conducted over several days between July 20, 2004, and December 20, 2004.
The evidence presented at the dissolution hearing revealed that James graduated from medical school in 1988. In 1997, he opened his own medical practice as a family practitioner. At the time of the dissolution, James had offices in Harrisburg and Marion and employed two physician assistants. According to his 2003 tax return, the practice grossed approximately $950,000, of which James reported his gross business income at $201,841. His 2002 tax return reported that his practice grossed approximately $842,000, of which James reported his personal gross business income at $325,416.
While James pursued his medical career, Valery concentrated her efforts on raising the children. As the children got older, Valery began working full time as a teacher in the Harrisburg school district. According to her 2003 tax return, her annual income was $33,527.
The bulk of the evidence presented at the dissolution hearing pertained to the value of James’s medical practice. This evidence, along with other evidence presented during the hearing, will be set forth in greater detail where relevant in this disposition. For now, it is sufficient to note that the circuit court valued James’s medical practice at $379,473, of which $160,000 consisted of enterprise goodwill.
In its judgment order, the circuit court found that the total value of the parties’ marital property was approximately $1 million, including the value of James’s medical practice. The circuit court divided the marital property equally. In addition, the circuit court found that Jаmes had an annual pretax income of $350,000, and the court awarded Valery monthly maintenance in the amount of $2,000, ordered James to pay monthly child support in the amount of $5,333, and ordered James to pay $25,000 of Valery’s attorney fees. James appeals this order.
The first issue raised by James on appeal is whether the circuit court erred in admitting David Wood’s expert testimony pertaining to the value of enterprise goodwill in James’s medical practice. In its order, the circuit court noted the extremely “different evaluations” that each party had placed on the value of James’s medical practice. The circuit court noted that James claimed that the practice was worth $20,000 and that Valery claimed that the practice was worth $581,000. This first issue raised by James strictly pertains to the value of enterprise and personal goodwill in the practice.
At the dissolution hearing, Wood testified that, in his opinion, James’s medical practice had a total goodwill value of $350,000, of which $245,000 consisted of enterprise goodwill and $105,000 consisted of personal goodwill. In reaching his conclusion, Wood testified that he utilized an approach called the multiattribute utility theory. On appeal James argues, as he did before the circuit court, that Wood’s testimony pertaining to the value of enterprise and personal goodwill should not have been admitted because the multiattribute utility theory used by Wood to form his opinion is a novel scientific methodology that is not generally accepted in the relevant scientific community. Accordingly, James argues that Wood’s opinion on the amount of the total goodwill that constituted enterprise goodwill was inadmissible under Frye v. United States,
After considering James’s arguments, the circuit court specifically found, “Mr. Wood’s approach, though not scientific, was thoughtful and persuasive.” Although the circuit court admitted Wood’s testimony, it rejected Wood’s proposed total goodwill figure of $350,000 and found that James’s medical practicе had a total goodwill value of $240,000. The circuit court then employed Wood’s opinion to the extent that Wood suggested that approximately two-thirds of the total goodwill in the practice consisted of enterprise goodwill. The circuit court then found that $160,000 of the total value of goodwill in James’s medical practice constituted enterprise goodwill. Before examining whether Wood’s testimony was properly admitted, we briefly examine the importance of distinguishing enterprise goodwill from personal goodwill for purposes of a dissolution proceeding.
Goodwill represents the ability to acquire future income and . has been defined as “ ‘ “ ‘the valuе of a business or practice that exceeds the combined value of the physical assets.’ ” ’ ” In re Marriage of Schneider,
On appeal, James does not challenge Wood’s qualifications as an expert. James also does not contend that Wood’s testimony would not aid the trier of fact in understanding the evidence. See In re Marriage of Jawad,
Illinois has adopted the Frye standard for use when courts are faced with a question of the admissibility of novel scientific evidence. People v. Basler,
It is important to remember that the Frye test only applies to evidence that is both novel and scientific. In re K.T.,
If an expert’s opinion is derived solely from his or her observations and expеriences, the opinion is generally not considered scientific evidence. In re Marriage of Jawad,
In Harris,
1
the appellate court was faced with the question of whether the opinions of three expert witnesses constituted scientific evidence. These witnesses testified that the herbicide 2,4-D had caused damage to the plaintiffs’ crops. Harris,
In concluding that the opinions of these three experts did not constitute scientific evidence, thе appellate court noted that although botany and chemistry were undisputedly implicated in the testimony of these witnesses, none of the witnesses relied on some particular scientific principle or methodology in determining whether 2,4-D had caused damage to the plaintiffs’ crops. Harris,
In the instant case, Wood testified that in reaching his conclusion on what portion of the total goodwill in James’s medical practice constituted enterprise goodwill and what portion constituted personal goodwill, he employed the multiattribute utility theory. 2 Wood testified that he believed he was the first to use this approach in reaching his conclusion. Wood also testified that his approach was scientific. According to Wood, the multiattribute utility theory works as follоws.
First, the valuator (Wood in this case) sets forth an objective. In the instant case, the objective set forth by Wood was to form a conclusion on the value of the elements of total goodwill in James’s medical practice that represent personal goodwill and enterprise goodwill.
Next, the valuator establishes “alternatives.” An alternative is a “range of percentages” that will define the choices “in which the method will result.” Wood chose five alternatives but acknowledged that there is no set rule for the number of alternatives that a valuator must choose.
Each alternative is then assigned a “range.” Wood assigned a range of 20% for each alternative. To illustrate, Wood created a graph containing five rows and two columns. The rows were labeled “alternative 1” to “alternative 5,” and the two columns were labeled “[personal] goodwill” and “enterprise goodwill.” Where the rows and columns intersect, Wood inserted the range. For example, where personal goodwill and row 1 intersect, Wood inserted a range of “0 to 20 percent.” Where enterprise goodwill and row 1 intersect, Wood inserted a range of “80 to 100 percent.” Where personal goodwill and row 2 intersect, Wood inserted a range of “20 to 40 percent.” Where enterprise goodwill and row 2 intersect, Wood inserted a range of “60 to 80 percent.” This continued to row 5, where the range for personal goodwill was “80 to 100 percent” and the range for enterprise goodwill was “0 to 20 percent.”
After the objective and the alternatives are set, the valuator must then define the “attributes.” An attribute is an element of goodwill to which the valuator must assign a value. Examples of attributes are personal reputation and business location. Attributes are categorized as either personal or enterprise. Wood does not contend that there are universal attributes that must be defined in every situation. Wood also does not contend that there is a set number of attributes that must be defined. Instead, Wood leaves the creation and categorization of attributes to the discretion of the valuator.
In the instant case, Wood created the following personal attributes: (1) lacks transferability, (2) specialized knowledge, (3) personalized name, (4) inbound referrals, (5) personal reputation, (6) personal staff, (7) age, health, and work habits, and (8) knowledge of end user. Wood created the following enterprise attributes: (1) number of offices, (2) business location, (3) multiple service providers, (4) enterprise staff, (5) systems, (6) years in business, (7) outbound referrals, and (8) marketing. Wood acknowledged that the attributes could be described as “opposite sides of the same cоin” and testified that “if one valuator placed an attribute into the [personal] category and another valuator [placed the same attribute] into the enterprise category, the model would correct for this during the measuring process.”
After defining the attributes, the valuator is then to assign a value to each attribute. This involves a two-step process. First, the valuator assigns a value known as an attribute’s “utility of importance.” The utility of importance is a value placed on an attribute based on how important the valuator feels the attribute is to the value of goodwill. The value assigned is taken from a range created by the valuator. Wood crеated a utility-of-importance range of 1 to 5, with 5 being most important and 1 being least important. Wood then assigned a utility-of-importance value to each attribute he defined.
Next, the valuator assigns a value known as an attribute’s “utility of existence.” The utility of existence is a value placed on an attribute based on the valuator’s determination of the presence of that attribute in the business that the valuator is analyzing. The value is also taken from a range created by the valuator. Wood created a range of 0 to 4, assigning 0 to an attribute that has a weak presence and 4 to an attribute that has a strong presence. The values that Wood assigns to the utility of importance and the utility of existence are derived solely from his subjective opinion.
After assigning each attribute two values (a utility-of-importance value and a utility-of-existence value), the valuator then “aggregates the results.” Aggregating the results simply involves multiplying the values assigned to an attribute to come up with a final value for that attribute. For example, in the instant case, for the personal-reputation attribute Wood assigned a utility-of-importance value of 5 and a utility-of-existence value of 3, to give it a final value, or “multiplicative utility” as Wood calls it, of 15. Once each attribute has a final value, the valuator then takes the sum of the finаl values for each attribute from its assigned category (personal or enterprise) and derives a “total multiplicative utility” for that category. Wood calls the total value for the personal attributes the “total multiplicative (PGA) utility” and the total value for the enterprise attributes the “total multiplicative (EGA) utility.” The valuator then adds the total multiplicative (PGA) utility to the total multiplicative (EGA) utility and comes up with a “total multiplicative (TMU) utility.” The valuator then employs simple division to determine what percentage of the total multiplicative (TMU) utility consists of the total multiplicative (PGA) utility and what percentage consists of the total multiplicative (EGA) utility. At this point, the valuatоr has before him or her what percentage of the total goodwill is personal goodwill and what percentage is enterprise goodwill.
In the instant case, Wood calculated the total multiplicative (PGA) utility for the personal attributes at 52 and the total multiplicative (EGA) utility for the enterprise attributes at 114. Accordingly, he found a total multiplicative (TMU) utility of 166 (52 plus 114). Employing the simple division set forth above, Wood concluded that the personal goodwill attributes constitute 31% of the total goodwill (52 divided by 166) and that the enterprise goodwill attributes constitute 69% of the total goodwill (114 divided by 166).
According to Wood, once these figures are reached, the valuator is then to “evaluate the alternatives” by examining where the final results fit into the range of alternatives that was established at the beginning of this methodology. The valuator also must analyze his or her conclusions by looking at each attribute individually in light of the attribute’s total contribution to the total utility, and the valuator must ask himself or herself if certain attributes should be “driving the results.” After performing this analysis, the valuator then reaches his or her ultimate opinion.
Wood testified that although a valuator would most likely find it tempting to simply use the final percentage that is derived from the math above (in this case, 69% for enterprise goodwill and 31% for personal goodwill), he believes that “it is more effective and prоper” to select the midpoint of the range that exists in the appropriate alternative. Accordingly, if the percentage for enterprise goodwill fell anywhere within the 20%-to-40% range, Wood believes that the figure 30% should be used for the final percentage of enterprise goodwill. In the instant case, because Wood calculated 69% for enterprise goodwill, for his conclusion he used 70%, which is located at the midpoint of his 60%-to-80% range. As noted above, the circuit court did not use 70% as suggested by Wood but instead used a two-thirds ratio.
After conducting a thorough examination of Wood’s multiattribute utility theory, we are convinced that this method does not constitute scientific evidence subject to a Frye hearing. The methodology employed by Wood does not rely on the application of scientific principles but incorporates basic math with the observations and experience of the valuators. As Wood points out, the creation of the alternatives, the creation of the ranges, the creation of the attributes, and the values assigned to the attributes are all derived from the subjective determinations of the valuator. Wood never contends that there are universal alternatives, attributes, utility values, or ranges that must be applied in each and every situation. Furthermore, he does not allege thаt there are constant or universal values that must be assigned. Wood leaves just about everything to the sole discretion of the valuator.
Although Wood repeatedly describes his approach as “scientific,” this does not make it so for purposes of subjecting it to a Frye hearing. Wood acknowledged that the “whole process” is “subjective” and that the methodology he uses simply attempts to make a “precise decision from imprecise and subjective criteria.” In addition, to the extent that mathematics is employed in Wood’s methodology, the types of mathematics employed by Wood (addition, multiplication, and division) are certainly not novеl. Most people are at least familiar with these basic mathematical principles, although certainly some are more versed at applying them than others. But suffice it to say, to the extent that mathematics is employed in Wood’s methodology, this does not make it a scientific methodology subject to Frye. However, even if it were sufficiently scientific to trigger a Frye hearing, the evidence would pass the general-acceptance test because elementary mathematics has gained general acceptance in all fields of science and engineering. Southern Energy Homes, Inc. v. Washington,
On appeal, James argues that the methodology employed by Wood relies on literature and the expertise of others. We disagree. Although Wood may be using an equation or a process utilized by others in other fields, how Wood reached his opinion is no different from how the experts in Harris reached their opinion. Wood’s opinion was derived from his own observations and experience. Wood’s methodology involved assigning a value, as determined by Wood, to certain attributes of James’s practice that Wood subjectively determined, based on his experience and observations, to be attributes that relate to the enterprise or personal goodwill value of James’s mediсal practice. Wood then relied on simple math to quantify his opinion. We do not believe that Wood’s approach is scientific for purposes of a Frye hearing. See Harris,
James relies heavily on In re Marriage of Jawad to support his position that Woоd’s testimony is subject to Frye. In re Marriage of Jawad is readily distinguishable. In In re Marriage of Jawad, the respondent sought an order requiring all visitation between the parties’ children and the petitioner to be supervised. The respondent claimed that the petitioner was an abduction risk and that the petitioner might abduct the parties’ three minor children to Iraq. In re Marriage of Jawad,
Dabbagh then testified that in making her decision regarding whether the petitioner was a risk to abduct the children, she considered six risk factors that had been identified as the result of research performed by the American Bar Association’s Center on Children and the Law on actual cases of abduction. Dabbagh testified that the petitioner possessed three of these factors that had been identified as common to all abductors. In re Marriage of Jawad,
On appeal, the Second District Appellate Court considered the issue of the admissibility of Dabbagh’s testimony. In re Marriage of Jawad,
The instant case is distinguishable from In re Marriage of Jawad because in In re Marriage of Jawad the expert clearly turned to and relied upon another source to provide a basis for her opinion. Wood no more turned to other sources to provide a basis for his opinion than did the experts in Harris. Wood’s reliance on other sources only assisted Wood in creating the basic mathematical formula that he would use to quantify his opinion. Again, the basis for Wood’s opinion was derived through his observations and experience, and therefore, this case is distinguishable from In re Marriage ofJawad and other cases cited by James wherein the expert’s opinion clearly relied on another source. See In re Commitment of Simons,
The next issue raised by James on appeal challenges the circuit court’s valuation of two Vanguard accounts. The circuit court awarded Valery two Vanguard accounts that the circuit court valued at $10,804. This included a 21% reduction in value imposed by the circuit court on these accounts. The evidence presented at the dissolution hearing showed that the accounts were actually worth $13,792.97. James argues on appeal that there is no indication in the record why a 21% reduction in value was imposed, but James speculates it was to take into account the effect of taxes. James argues that this is improper and that the valuation should be reversed.
In response, Valery concedes that the reduction is related to taxes and argues that a 21% reduction is low, because her taxes will probably be 30% when the accounts are liquidated. Valery contends that it is appropriate for the circuit court to consider the tax implications of property, pursuant to section 503(d)(12) of the Act (750 ILCS 5/503(d)(12) (West 2004)). Furthermore, Valery contends that her retirement benefits were valued the same way. However, Valery concedes that her retirement was cashed out prior to the divorce and that the funds had been used for the parties’ living expenses. In any event, Valery contends that the valuation is not contrary to the statute and hence did not constitute an abuse of discretion..
Section 503(d)(12) of the Act provides that the trial court shall divide the marital property in just proportions, considering relevant factors including “the tax consequences of the property division upon the respective economic circumstances of the parties.” 750 ILCS 5/503(d)(12) (West 2004). However, in In re Marriage ofEmken,
James also cites In re Marriage of Hawkins,
In light of the precedent set forth above, we believe that the circuit court abused its discretion in its valuation of the Vanguard funds. The circuit court should not have reduced the value of the funds by 21%. However, because an appropriate valuation only marginally impacts the entire valuation and subsequent distribution of marital property, we find that any error is de minimis and that a reversal is not required. The circuit court valued all the marital property at approximately $1 million. A proper valuation of the Vanguard accounts would merely increase the total value of the parties’ marital property by less than one-half of one percent of its current figure. James does not contend that the division of marital property was inequitable (apart from his argument that his medical practice was overvalued), and we do not believe that inserting a proper valuation of the Vanguard accounts significantly affects the division of marital property to mandate a reversal and remand for the redistribution of marital property. Furthermore, James failed to raise this argument in a post-trial motion to allow the circuit court to address and correct the error. Pursuant to our powers provided by Supreme Court Rule 366 (155 Ill. 2d R. 366), we modify the circuit court’s order to reflect the proper value of the Vanguard accounts ($13,792.97). However, we in no way alter the distribution of marital property.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.
Affirmed.
GOLDENHERSH and McGLYNN, JJ., concur.
Notes
We acknowledge that the appellate court’s decision in Harris has been abrogated by the supreme court’s decision in Donaldson v. Central Illinois Public Service Co.,
Although Wood and others interchange the terms “professional goodwill” and “personal goodwill,” we shall use the term “personal goodwill” throughout to maintain consistency.